Time to go on the record

The answer would be "never"

How big is the factory you must already have lined up to manufacture these balloons? You do have everything ready to go, right? Because you'll need to manufacture 24/7 for the next few years to beat the clock on ice melt.

So we'll have some years with no ice. Then we'll have ice again.

I'm not ready to quit.

To reform ice on any significant scale. Not to mention the methane outgassing that's already increasing at a disturbing pace.

It's like setting a car at the top of a hill in neutral, and giving it a little push. You might be able to stop it if you get in front of it when it's only traveled a few feet, but after that, momentum builds up and you risk get crushed.

The CO2 can be converted into a bunch of different things.

No reason to quit...

Mine is not a philosophy of resignation...

I grew up with can-do pilots, engineers, and start-up guys.

n/t

it's also possible that few, if any, of us will be alive to see it happen, and that's with drastic action taken to mitigate, stop, and reverse climate change.

we can stop global warming in roughly 50 years.

While it's not my ideal project, I guess it'll keep me out of trouble in the streets...

EDIT: I'm getting senile tonight... I forgot to mention that a cheap industrial cryo-chiller will extract 6 tons of CO2/day
that's roughly 3.6 kilotons per year. Use ten chillers, get 60 tons/day/ballon.

Sorry about that.

because you seem to be assuming we know what you're talking about. "High altitude reflective balloons" I understand. But now, you seem to have equipped them with 10 "cheap industrial cryo-chillers", which extract CO2 from the atmosphere and - do what with it? I presume this doesn't have anything to do with the balloons' self-replication ability...

Have you a link to what you're proposing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=23049

That's where it starts...

I only wish our government would get off it's ass.........and do something!

Why not do it ourselves?

The only really expensive thing, if we buy all parts from "the store" is the chillers.

If I get bored enough, I might do it myself.

After all, much of the best progress has been made because of a dedicated few activists who worked hard to achieve their goals and never gave up in the face of adversity, am I right?

One of my earliest reading lessons pointed out the Wright Brothers built the first workable aircraft, after 50 years of failed government R&D.

I've always been a fan of Direct Action.

I could probably find a crew of 25 or so, to start work...
but it would be a motley collection of geeks and 'punks.

Please, do tell.

pretty sure I did...

You kind of have to experience the changes for a short historical time to get a sense of what is really happening i guess. Many of us has seen the unthinkable happen over, and over, and over. Eventually you begin to see the bigger picture.

If the world were smart, we'd begin consolidating the remaining energy and rare earth minerals for alternative power, instead of wasting them on toys, and work our asses off trying to drastically change our culture not just in an attempt to slow what is coming but more importantly to try and adapt as much as possible. We don't have much time at all.

Been a Skeptical Science and Pete Sinclair follower for a while now, TBH.

On the other hand, I do agree with you on this one thing: alternative power will be absolutely VITAL to civilization's survival over these next decades.

There are surprises waiting for you. The harder and deeper you dig, the sooner you will uncover them.

We need to get rid of about 545 gigatons of CO2.

Begin list of givens:
-balloon 200 ft radius
-balloon is filled with methane
-balloon uses either PV solar panels, or solar fired thermocouples
-balloon lifts 10 industrial cryo chillers
-balloon has seawater mineral extractors
-balloon has chemistry lab
end list of givens...

-volume = 200^3 *4.19 = (roughly) 32,000,000 cubic feet
-weight of gas= 32,000,000 *.018 (methane) = 576,000 lbs = 288 tons
-lifting ability = 32,000,000 *.054 (methane) = 1,728,000 lbs = 864 tons

-cryo chillers (alibaba.com will sell them) weigh about 5 tons, use 5 KW, and produce 6 tons of Dry Ice per day, and collects Methane
-10 chillers will create 60 tons/day = 21.9 Kilotons of Dry Ice/year

-extract magnesium from sea water (Norton's encyclopedia, or Zumdahl's, your choice)
-set burning magnesium on top of the dry ice->this creates Graphite or Grapheme
-use either of the above in a sheet depositor
-build new balloon out of the sheets
-fill with collected methane.

Use exponential growth to create a building cycle (1 balloon per balloon per year)

Problem solved!

Seriously, isn't trying to fix the problem a damn sight better than sitting around and saying nothing can be done?

That's the reason I never read the "New Wave" garbage faux-SF

I'm not convinced.
I used to be, but I'm not any more.

You think it's better to just sit and do nothing?

Not a smart attitude.

Should we instead just site there and let things get worse? Talk about playing up to a stereotype!

I've shown my math. All of those numbers can be checked.

Using up the excess CO2 would work, so what's your beef?

Not convinced of the importance of being "smart".
Not convinced of the truth of anything we believe.

I know the numbers - I used to work on the issues of "what can we do" quite hard. Now I don't, and this seems right for me. It's not right for you - at least not yet, and perhaps it never will be. But there are at least 6,999,999,998 other people besides you and me in the world, and they all have different ideas of what is right for themselves (and others...)

I think we should all do exactly what we feel called to do, whether it's working or sitting still, believing or not believing.
If the CO2 disappears, fine. If it doesn't, that's fine too. At least as far as I'm concerned (which isn't nearly as far as it used to be).

I'm far more intrigued by noticing what's happening right now than trying to grasp the mists of the future and direct them according to my will. I tried that, and I found it leads only to personal suffering. Now I prefer to watch.

I'll keep an eye on your efforts. I'm glad you're passionate about them.

I don't think we're even close to alone when both of us say that we can mitigate, halt, and at least partly reverse, the overall problem, if we really tried. In fact, there are indeed solutions that have been proven as plausible, whether small-scale, or large.

1.) How many people would want to live in a flying island commune?
2.) WTF to do with that much Graphite-Graphite composite material? (Each year, you could build something about the size of a light destroyer... per balloon used)
3.) You've got a lot of excess power created. How can we ship it to the places that need it?

On a different note...
4.) Why do so many people seem to want to live 'low tech?" that usually means little or no free time. (And if definitely means no Orange Julius smoothies in the winter time...)
5.) Why is it that the "low tech" crowd seems to have trouble with "YOU do your thing over there, and I'll do MY thing over here..."?

Certainly not many that I've talked to. the reason that some low-tech types have a problem with "You do your thing, and I'll do mine" is that your thing involves raping and destroying the planet and much of the life on it, while theirs doesn't. Yours impacts them whether they like it or not, while theirs doesn't impact you at all. That's the main difference that I see. High tech that gave the world global warming. Low tech gave us permaculture.

You place far too much emphasis on the value of Orange Julius. It's a disgusting drink. You could brew your own kombucha instead. It tastes better, and it's better for you and the planet too.

1.) "raping and destroying the planet..." strange... my set up would be returning the carbon balance of this planet back to 1850. (you can pretty much set the carbon balance to the year you choose...just add more or less carbon eating balloons...)

1a.) Yes, I think a number of misguided souls think they want to live low tech. I consider them deluded.

2.) By your line of argument, I HAVE to live low tech, or you will get pissy. That sounds like a form of slavery to a twisted and romanticized version of a dark ages cult. No thank you. I can use the existing pollution sources to maintain a high tech civilization, for any number of people.

3.) I can't speak for YOUR orange juliuses, but MINE include Kombucha with ginger. (By the way... better than WHAT for the planet?)

Nothing I say can affect you unless you react to it, after all. The same goes the other way, obviously.

You claim that your setup is so simple and cheap that a kid on the Internet with a bit of pocket money can set it up off the shelf and pull gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Then why on earth has James Hansen not thrown his weight behind it? There's a huge constituency waiting for you to show them the light. If it were to work, and not have any negative effects down the road, you're looking at a Nobel prize. Strike that, even if it did fuck things up down the road you'd get a Nobel. Norman Borlaug did just that, after all.

If you make your own OJ, good for you. I thought you were speaking of Orange Julius™ - from the eponymous chain of commercial liquid sugar shoppes.

when I want an Orange Julius, I go to my local health food place and buy orange, pulp them, add the kombucha and a little kefir, and then grind in some "fresh" vanilla root. G.T's gingerberry Kombucha works, in a pinch.

How much is a Nobel worth?

G.T.'s Gingerberry kombucha is our favourite brand and flavour as well. My partner introduced me to it. She spent the last 15 years in LA and fell in love with that specific flavour. When I brought her back to Ottawa a couple of years ago we found it here - kombucha is only just catching on here in Canada, and there's only one store here in the capital that carries G.T.'s. The price is vicious up here, but it's still worth it.

I'll pass on your recipe, and we'll give the VitaMix a little workout later this week. Thank you.

Every time man thinks he is smarter than nature he fucks things up. The real solution was for people to CHANGE. For people to realize that the wants of the individual (person, nation, religion...) is not more important than the needs of the whole and that the needs of the moment ALWAYS have consequences (positive or negative) for the future. Man couldn't be bothered to change. Still can't be bothered. So perceived simple solutions, of the sort that got us into this mess, will have their own consequences.

This may not be what GG is suggesting but it is what i believe...I believe that acceptance, for the consequences of our own behavior, at this point, is wiser than chasing our tails with more of the same. WE MADE THIS BED, we will have to lie in it. The best we can do at this point is learn to fluff the pillows.

"The main cause of problems is solutions."

Craig Dilworth's book Too Smart for our Own Good outlines how this works in what he calls the "Vicious Circle Principle":

1. Humanity encounters a problem;
2. We apply our boundless innovative drive and cleverness to solving the problem;
3. We come up with a solution, one that usually increases the technical or social complexity of our civilization.
4. The solution removes the barrier, and allows humanity's population and consumption to keep growing.
5. Continued growth guarantees that we will eventually encounter another problem: Go to 1.

Of course during the post-solution period we also have to deal with the unexpected consequences of the solution. A classic example is global warming, the unintended consequence of solving the problem of energy availability by using fossil fuels.

As the system gets larger, the problems get bigger; the solutions scale up to meet them; and the unintended consequences become more severe. Eventually, it is virtually guaranteed that we will encounter a problem we can't solve: one that is too large, too complex or too immediate to allow us to solve it within the constraints of our resources, knowledge and the time available.

My position is that we would probably be better off in the long run if everyone took a break from problem-solving and let things ride for a while. It arose out of my conclusion that we have already encountered the sort of problem I described above. Climate change is too big, complex and immediate to be soluble - given our resources, knowledge and the time available. Every proposal I've seen so far has either been technically unfeasible (like the balloon idea or CCS), politically unfeasible (shut down the global economy by 80% or more), or involves violations of the Precautionary Principle (eg. geoengineering). To the extent that we do implement any of them, we are guaranteed to encounter more problems down the road as a result.

We also have to consider that climate change is only one of a large set of equally complex (wicked) problems, all of which are interlocked so that addressing one may worsen others, and all of which are converging on us right now. We are not facing a problem or even a set of problems but rather a predicament. As a result, mitigation might be possible (though not guaranteed), but solutions are out of the question. That leaves adaptation as the only path forward that has a high chance of actually working and a low likelihood of unintended consequences.

If we insist on trying to "solve" the problem, we will probably fail and we will - with 100% certainty - create unintended consequences that make our problems worse later. So, as I say in my sig line, I advise against attempts to solve the top-level problem(s).

This position is, as our friendly geek named Bob reminds us, anathema to the very large number of human beings who believe that we have both the ability and responsibility to do something - anything - to fix what we broke. It's a reaction that springs from equal measures of hubris and guilt.

In the end my position is driven by a recognition of the scale of the problems; the inevitability of their impact on civilization; the equal inevitability of our attempts to fix them - thereby breaking things worse; and my own inability to alter the course of these events. As a result I have chosen another path entirely: to act as a shamanic witness to the catastrophe and as a "psychopomp" both for individuals and my culture as we enter what promises to be a very Dark Night of the Soul. It's not a path for everyone, but it's one I see more and more people adopting as they come to these same conclusions.

I wish I you were right. Man, oh man, do I wish you were right. But that's not how things have worked for the past 20-odd years and it sure as hell won't work in the future.

That's why we're in this mess. If we haven't been able to make the system work with that much practice, why on earth do we think that more of the same will suddenly work now?

We've never tried "taking a break" in all that time. It's long past time to give some totally new and different ideas the light of day. Just to see what happens.

I despise the attitude of "we just have to learn to live with it." Fuck that.

Let me guess... We should all live low tech life styles, in small villages.

I piss on that from a great height (preferably from a balloon).

I'd rather be known for at least TRYING to solve a problem, than be lumped in with the self-condemned.

You don't like it? Don't help.

I will be reinstalling my solar panels on the roof, raising our wind turbine, collecting rainwater, canning food, building an earth bermed greenhouse, raising chickens... loving my family, preparing them and talking to other people about the importance of change. Don't mock the small village idea, to some of us that is like heaven on earth. I won't suggest that the villages need to be low tech, but they certainly will be in nobody gets really moving on that alternative power issue

It would be nice if you could invest some of that "can-do" into creating better alternative energy sources or learning improved ways to grow food in an altered environment or helping to create housing that could withstand any changes and still provide a safe, easily warmed and cooled environment.

Investing energy to LIVE within the changes instead of chasing the tail end trying to stop what is already happening seems a more efficient use of time but i realize not everyone is there. Let me introduce you to the stages of grief.

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

You are mistaken to view me as self condemned. I think life if awe inspiring and beautiful and i think the way to maintain it as long as possible is to ADAPT.

I'm already working with folks to build solar thermal power systems (wind power won't work well in my area)

My wife and I produce a fair patch of our own food.
If YOU want to live in a little low tech village, have it. I'll keep mocking it. If YOU try to force others to live that way, then we;ve got a problem.

Your attempts at pop-psychology are duly noted, and looked down on.

I've shown my math for my solution. Where am I wrong? Could it be that you want to live low tech for some other reason?

Why? Did i insult you? Did i say people need to live low tech? Did i imply i myself am living low tech?

I believe what i DID say is that we need to work harder at transforming to an alternative energy culture. E.N.E.R.G.Y meaning T.E.C.H able. What i did say is that we need to transform our housing and food production methods as an adaption to the changes ALREADY HERE. Are these things somehow offensive to you?

As for your solutions, i humbly disagree that your solution would solve the problem, especially without unintended consequence. I don't think this is cause for anger. People are entitled to disagree.

I view the solution you're proposing as too limited. Shading an area is not going to prevent environmental heat unless you plan to block off the arctic from the rest of the environment. The whole concept behind the greenhouse affect is that heat is trapped on this planet. ALL OVER THE PLANET. This heat is causing feedback loops to occur all over the planet. The Amazon and conifer forests are changing into a gas emitter instead of sinks.

These feedback loops are accelerating the speed of change. Sure, you can possibly SLOW the melting in the arctic (which is actually only one piece of a very large puzzle), but look at the images, doesn't it seem a little late for that? Your solution will eat up massive amounts of the limited resources available to us on this planet. These same DANGEROUSLY LIMITED resources are needed to provide this planet with alternative energy options which will not only help us survive the changes already occurring but would also be necessary to create and power the tech you seem so passionate about. Besides, like i said before, your "solution" would only lead to other, possibly more detrimental consequences.

Ocean acidity is one of the feedback loops which is altering the ability of the oceans to act as a carbon sink. Phytoplankton, which are most productive near arctic regions (catch that? Arctic regions), require a certain ph balance and salinity to survive. These absorb most of the carbon on the planet. These tiny plants require photosynthesis to survive. What happens when you take plants and place them in unrelenting shade? And what happens to plants when they die?

Simple and short term will serve us no better than it did when it lead us here in the first place.

would be the excess CO2 and Methane.

Also, the areas of the balloons not used to power the chillers could be used to provide power to the land anchor points. Or you could power nutrient enriching sea farms. Or you could run a hydrogen plant to power a community. Or you could power a whole lot of houses/communities. I'm figuring on combining the lot into a down-market arcology. (It's not in this set of numbers, but it wouldn't be too hard to start running the numbers.)

You wouldn't have to cover the whole of the arctic. Matter of fact, you'd need around 1/5 of a percent of the total Arctic area. As to the "unrelenting shade," why not keep these structures moving around? Use the winds, and some of the excess power, to just move the structures.

Why not use the balloons to float seawater carbon sponges? You could place these around in areas with currents, and "clean" the oceans (slowly) of the excess carbon.

We are tool-makers, we can solve our problems.

What good is just trying plain old adaptation without trying to mitigate the problem? Sorry to say this, but this kind of thinking kinda reminds me of what Exxon executive Rex Tlllerson said not long ago concerning his views on the issue. To be perfectly honest here, adaptation without working towards solutions will, sadly, have a very low rate of success and may even have a high chance of unintended consequences as well(I am reminded of a 'Canticle for Liebowitz', in which books of learning were destroyed and the title character had to found a Catholic order to save them, for which he was martyred for doing so.....). To do nothing, may perhaps be the biggest act of hubris, even if unintended, perhaps, other than deliberately contributing to the problem.

The one good thing that's coming out of all this is that more and more people are demanding that solutions be worked on, because the gravity of the problem at hand requires such.

and fix the problem a lot faster...

The more balloons, the quicker the end date comes around.

On the plus side, that many balloons can provide a LOT of low cost housing, with great ocean views...

Getting more cars to run on alternative fuels like hemp is one. We can also start planting mangroves and other carbon-sucking plants and such as well.

Mangrove swamps also really alleviate damage from storm surges. (They are also incredibly cool looking!)

Hemp oil is good for bio-diesel. Hemp oil also makes a pretty good machine oil ('tho it tend to be unusable for high speed mill and lathe work...)

What's the impact energy of these chillers falling out of the air from high altitude?

so use strong tie-cables, and restrict the flights to over oceans...

I grew up around people that believed in Can-Do.

I'm a learning disabled guy finishing his 2nd master's degree, and stocking his three lab spaces.

I've been told that I share the "Spirit of Apollo..."

Isn't it better to try and solve a problem, instead of just whinging on about it?

It really seems like some folks WANT global warming to continue, for some reason, instead of fixing the problem.

As to your multi-tombstoned...WTF are you talking about?

I've shown my math, where am I wrong?

It's all over but the screaming.

so what's the next step?

Once we stop screaming we might begin look for the gift in all these upheavals.

Examples of that "gift" might be:

• An understanding that humanity is a special animal, and that both our specialness and our animal nature must be a factor in all we do;
  
• A realization that we are a part of nature, not apart from her.
  
• An awareness that our sense of control is an illusion born of fear;
  
• A recognition of our personal and collective limitations, and a reorientation to action within them;
  
• An awakening to the fact that change is not the enemy, but the nature of reality;
  
• A realization that what humanity faces is not a set of physical problems, but the turmoil that always accompanies a transition from adolescence into adulthood.

Or we could just keep on altering the planet until we get it right.

what you just described strikes me as fashionable learned helplessness. Blech!

How about this...

YOU go talk about how we can't fix things, and I'LL go fix the problem.

The question is then...

Labor usually gets compensated...

I like to be paid.

Lucky for you, there are a lot more of those types around than there are of my type. Make sure you hold out for a really good per diem and an expense account with unlimited air travel! What's the point of saving the world if you don't get paid for it?

If I fix the problem, I ought to be paid.

And by "fix" I mean my proposal to change our consciousness so as to redefine the problem as an opportunity...

It only sounds like an opportunity to slide backwards, into the muck of savagery.

Living in little low tech villages hardly sounds like a thing to aspire to...

People were plenty happy living in little low tech villages for the last hundred thousand years. What gives the last three hundred years a lock on divine truth? Just the fact that you're used to it and may be afraid of losing some of your creature comforts?

You might not like living in my world, but then I have to admit there are days when I really hate living in yours.

You go live in the low tech world. I'll likely outlive you by decades...in a world with light, books, safe food, and regular police.

For my money, the world you are describing can best be seen John Barnes' Novels Directive 51 and Daybreak Zero.

If the low tech villages are so great, how come people aren't moving en masse into them?

I'm not saying that many people in the overdeveloped world should want to move out of their cushy, consumptive lifestyles - we all prefer what we're used to, after all. I'm just saying that there is no lack of happiness in lower-tech living arrangements. As long as basic living needs are met, happiness doesn't correlate well with consumption levels or average lifespan, let alone with the level of technology in a society. If we end up in a situation where "more" is not an option, people will keep on being happy, just as we always have.

I'm also not saying that we should be driving ourselves into low-tech lifestyles. That would be a response motivated at least by guilt, if not by fear. I'm saying that if low-tech lifestyles become inevitable through resource shortages, ecological exhaustion, climate change or social breakdown, that we don't need to fear them. In fact, 70% or more of the world already lives this way.

We have been culturally conditioned to the imperialistic view that the planet and its other inhabitants somehow owe us a 5-planet lifestyle, no matter what it costs them. Once that conditioning breaks down, we will find that most of our fears of a "life of less" are nothing but paper tigers.

What interests me most is watching what happens as the crisis unfolds. From that perspective, floating balloon gardens for buffalo grass are no more or less interesting than watching the polar ice melt - though the fact that the latter is actually happening while the former is not makes ice-watching a far better spectator sport. I watch the antics of James Inhofe with no more or less amusement or amazement than those of James Hansen. Both are expressions of the zeitgeist, strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage, to swipe a phrase from the Bard. They both create wonderful theater.

1.) with the system I've described, there's no shortage of building materials, wiring materials, basic food, water, power, living space, or communications.
2.) I fear low tech lifestyles, as I know what tends to happen to smiths.
3.) Like I keep saying, YOU go do your low tech lifestyle thing over there, and I'll go keep civilization running over HERE. I'll mock you and look down on you, but I tend to despise philosophers in general.

Please stop wasting time on message boards and build the system so that all of humanity can benefit as it has applications far outside of the special task you've given the system.

1.) I've already run the numbers, and I'm pricing out the scaffolding. I need to some building room, so I'm saving my pennies, as we speak. (I can build a much smaller system, here at casa geek... but it'll take longer to ramp up to the bigger balloons. (Still and all, I've got the parts on order...)
2.) The message boards are my down time. I feel this perverse need to defend Can-Do life-ways from the forces of glib inertia.
3.) This January, I'm attending a convention in the Boston area, and presenting my ideas for the system to some fellow Makers, to see where/if/when there are mistakes to be corrected.

You'll need it. I have friends in H+ (Humanity Plus, Transhumanism). Dozens of guys. They even have capital (millions collectively between all of them).

They've barely scratched the surface of this problem.

Like I said in an earlier post... I needed a long-term hobby.

Now that I've got the basic mechanism down, I figured I'd work out how to make this look "stylish."

I hear Steampunk is in...

with that last statement about philosophers. Anyone with antipathy towards deep thought is naturally going to gravitate towards facile, simplistic solutions. H. L. Mencken famously said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." And he wasn't even a philosopher.

People who shared your views are the reason we're in this horrifying multifaceted global predicament. I'd rather not have any more.

in other words...

"I'd rather just do nothing, and try to sound cool..."

Good luck to you, with that.

How about YOU go live in your low tech hovel, and I'll go save western civilization.

You go try and twist the nuts off problems with your wrench, and I'll watch.

I was thinking that my solution will be an elegant way of turning a problem (Global Warming) into a fuel, power, material, food, and housing source.

Also, if you like low tech... how are you handling communications? Going to give up that computer?

I guess the problem that I have, is I feel that philosophers are the parasitic BS artists of the world.

What's wrong with "you go live low tech over there, and I'll go live high-tech over here..."?

Turning the planet into fuel, power, material, food, and housing sources is what landed us in this spot. How is more of that not going to create more problems?

I've got nothing against computers, or even cars. I'm no TK. I'm just agog with astonishment that intelligent people would think that doing more of what gave us a bad outcome will magically produce a good outcome. That seems to me prima facie evidence of cognitive dissonance.

I'm not "turning the planet into fuel, power, material, food, and housing sources." Shame on you for being misleading.

I'm turning the existing (and predicted) POLLUTION into "fuel, power, material, food, and housing sources."

There is a difference.

It really sounds like you have trouble with the idea of you living low tech, while the rest of the world lives high tech. Why is that?

Personally, it really sounds like some form of envy. (What the hell... the Amish live pretty low tech... hang out with them.)

It's not the source of the raw materials that's the problem. It's the output that feeds human expansion in numbers and consumption. I have a problem with the world getting more voracious and anthropocentric all the time. Think of all those insignificant little garbage fish, so far down there in the food chain so far we can barely see them - who would ever have a problem with us turning them all into oil and meal? And what harm could ever come of it?

Have you ever done courses in complex systems theory or ecology? It sure doesn't sound like it.

let me cut to the chase...

what aspects of this low tech, ecologically pure living style can you prove to us?

I've read Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" and spotted the mistakes.

As I keep saying... If YOU want to go live low tech, go do it! Don't try to make me and mine live your ideology. If you do, we're going to have a serious problem.

Go and live in a modified Amish Lifestyle. No one's stopping you.

I WON'T live that way.

...sigh... philosophers... drugs are probably cheaper and easier on the body.

I say that if we did switch it would be easier on the planet, but I'm not proposing it. I had a fling with the anarcho-primitivists four or five years ago, and AFAIC their "prescription" is as much bullshit as the one from the H+ crowd.

Recognizing the problems inherent in a 5-planet lifestyle isn't the same as wanting to force everyone back to the land in some Yankee version of the Cultural Revolution. Just as recognizing the problems of overpopulation doesn't imply a desire to enforce one-child policies on everyone. That's just boogeyman shit TPTB use to shut down uncomfortable or inconvenient discussions about overshoot.

I'll leave the Amish lifestyle to the Amish thanks.

"I WON'T live that way." Your lifestyle is non-negotiable?

My lifestyle is my choice, yes? If I am a free being, I should at least have a majority say in my life. My current footprint is a lot less than 5 planets (after clean energy portfolio offsetting, we "produce" about 2 tons of CO2/yr). Using my system, I ought to have a negative footprint.

"Yankee version?" Where ya from, buddy?

You're damning yourself with faint praise there.

but I have to drive to work... and there's no love of tea and Orange Julius drinks...

Not to mention building parts.

as every other person on here?

at least we drive a lot LESS than most folks... and we only buy wind and solar generated power (under our home owner's insurance policy, we have to keep the furnace grid connected. Over the last year, I've been slowly un-gridding the other rooms, one at a time. The house has good insulation, so we don't use much heat in the winter (my BOTEC figures are about 1/4 normal heat consumption per year.)

I understand that 2 tons/year is the target goal to stop global warming...

I cannot see how you could possibly find the time since you're planning on a crew of only 25 (or was it 26?) to build enough balloons to cover 1/5 of the Arctic, researching and developing methane collection systems using off the shelf commercial chillers, developing plans for floating condos, researching and developing self replication and balloon design, creating ties, engineering flying carbon sinks...

You wanna get paid you better get on it.

Right now ships can sail within a few hundred miles of the north pole and encounter only bits and pieces of ice floating in the sea. (See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112723761 and the linked article to see what I'm talking about.)

So the satellites might show solid ice where the ships at the surface show mostly open water with lots of broken bits and pieces of ice. That being the case, the satellite data might be optimistic. I would venture to say that by summer of 2014 ships will be able to cross the Arctic Ocean in any direction and encounter no significant solid ice to slow them down, just floating bits and pieces. This is regardless of what the satellite data says.

Minimum CT area below 1 million in August, 2014.

Year-round? No real idea, but I'd go on record with 2022.

If what we are talking is a summer free of 'sea' ice, except at the very shores of land masses, 2013 - 2014.

What I am seeing is not precipitated by atmospheric heating as much as by the rise in ocean temperature not allowing old ice. The ice pack is now melting from the center out, with 7/8ths of ice below the ocean surface; this conclusion is inescapable. There will be winter freeze overs for a while, but next year we will begin an interim cycle of one or more months of water temperature warming in this region, due to loss of the albedoic properties of the ice floe. We are now beginning to enter, 'the feed back loop'.

edit: spelling

Could happen as soon as 2030-35, though, under really shitty luck type circumstances.

I've showed my math...
Where am I wrong?

Who is going to pay for your proposed geo-engineering efforts, and who's going to make money off of it? Because private enterprise won't do it if there's no profit to be made, and world governments have historically been very, very stingy about spending money on climate mitigation strategies.

they just don't believe in worst case scenarios of climate change, and if they do they insulate themselves with enclaves they think will afford their security. Saving the masses is of their last concern.

and do it yourself! Hell, call it the World-Saving Flying Commune.

I don't really care if The Powers That Be are interested. I'd rather go do it.

I've already once tried to enlist the masses and found profound frustration. Best leave it to a salesman and spammer, possibly you might volunteer.

Contact the people with means who have a vested interest in the status quo, of continuing to produce gigatons of GHG's, and try to convince them by scrubbing the atmosphere, they can continue the status quo.

Otherwise, you might try to convince others to quit using fossil fuels long enough for you to find philanthropists to scrub the air, so humans can reorganize their societies with sustainable populous activities and priorities, within the balance of the resources and ecosystems of the planet.

If you run into problems of too many humans needing too much activity to sustain mutually beneficial commerce allowing sustenance, you might realize saving the status quo is really not in the interest of humankind. Perhaps the natural process of die off associated with overshoot in other species, best addresses the dilemmas the egotism of the human condition faces today.

After all, not everyone has to die, only the majority. What better use of the sciences is there in todays' condition, than Darwinian selection. You could even pitch it to the religious, as natural selection of intelligent design.

But everyone is different, so your desired approaches might find traction among the diversity of nationalities, cultures, religions, races, classes and desires of people that inhabit the world we live in, today. I wish you luck if you choose to take on the coordination and manifestation of this endeavor.

I needed a hobby.

If you run into problems of too many humans needing too much activity to sustain mutually beneficial commerce allowing sustenance, you might realize saving the status quo is really not in the interest of humankind. Perhaps the natural process of die off associated with overshoot in other species, best addresses the dilemmas the egotism of the human condition faces today.

1.) I "might realize..."? Gee, mr. philosopher... It sure sounds like you are claiming superior knowledge. Care to share?

2.) We're already (slowly) making the transition away from carbon-based fuels, and over to electric cars.

Four-pack of Old Rasputin as the stakes?

Fort Bragg is 231 miles, but Sierra Nevada in Chico is 72.5 miles.

A 12-pack of Beer Camp beer is where it's at.

just for some variety, but sticking with enough alcohol grunt to do the job

the best beer comes from oregon.



Ice free in summer by 2014.

I'm an optimist. 2013 is a possibility but I don't think it'll happen. We're going to have one cold ass winter and it'll recoup a bit.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/09/models-are-improving-but-can-they-catch-up.html



And this:


The August CO2 concentration was 392.41

Totally ice-free by 2016..

a conversation of concerned people, to what, ??? means. We all contribute to this, should one person be able to destroy all our thoughts and communications? How much longer will you allow bob's bulling to prevail???????????? Get your shit together, no other poster I have seen deserves tombstoning, MORE. And, I do not usually, ... SHOUT!!!! get him the fuck out of here.

nt

1.) "raping and destroying the planet..." strange... my set up would be returning the carbon balance of this planet back to 1850. (you can pretty much set the carbon balance to the year you choose...just add more or less carbon eating balloons...)

1a.) Yes, I think a number of misguided souls think they want to live low tech. I consider them deluded.

===============


Deluded is believing, your tripe, put up or shut up, where are your hardware store balloons???, If it is so 'e a s y' , show me your sleasly, production. Maybe I'll invest, isn't that what you are all about, BOB, pay to play. Please, let me forget your comments, of past posts. Put up, in demonstration of your lo tech yogurt, or, let others discuss matters concerning them. What drives you to interfere with their concerns, if it does not contest your agenda, or less politely, AGENDA???

edit: added a letter for plural.

XemaSab, this has been edited to include, the not so delicate words below, sorry.

'Time to go on the record'. ... That was your post. We did respond.

Can you recognize it after BOB??? What determines abuse, this is not insult, this is an assault, against reason. I have never before complained, and 'shant' now; only I'll not return, until the ass holes do not rule the forum. hrh.

Ignore might be a useful feature.