Climate Catastrophe

[pjclarke]

That must be a relief for you. just imagine someone dying from cancer and up pops a solution albeit tried only on a rat with success . what is the person going to say "it was never published in a recognised journal"

Your attitude reinforces my point which is that climate change has been hijacked by people pretending they care and that it is a matter of life and death. What they really want is attention for themselves and to be able to manipulate what they do not like.

You might like to read this: Volcanic ash, fertilizer for the ocean? | oceanbites

Not sure I get the analogy. The Loehle reconstruction would never be accepted by a recognised journal because it is bad science, which is why it was placed in the scientific answer to Viz, and why the fact that it was not retracted is meaningless as the journal in question never retracts, even (e.g.) a 'paper' claiming the IPCC are wrong because the sun is made of iron

[DodgyAgent]

Not sure I get the analogy. The Loehle reconstruction would never be accepted by a recognised journal because it is bad science, which is why it was placed in the scientific answer to Viz, and why the fact that it was not retracted is meaningless as the journal in question never retracts, even (e.g.) a 'paper' claiming the IPCC are wrong because the sun is made of iron

The analogy is to point out that if something is a matter of life or death then "peer" review and scientific approval are irrelevant or at least should be hurriedly conducted.
The fact is that ocean fertilisation has hardly been looked at despite the evidence from the effects of volcanoes and sandstorms. The reason why is because the scientists and people like you do not want a solution that does not involve controlling human behaviour. Because you cannot argue the science you resort to the arrogance of the "scientific approval" that by proxy means that scientists control geo technical solutions.

At the very least products like this should be tested.

[BlasterBates]

The sixty year climate cycle

60-Year Cycle

which will kick AGW into touch by 2030, probably sooner

[LondonManc]

The gene pool needs some chlorine. We're a horrible species and need sorting out anyway.

[DodgyAgent]

Looks like the product is gaining traction albeit slowly "We are pleased to announce that two proposals submitted by us to contests organised by the Climate CoLab of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA have been selected for the Finals."

Nualgi - Diatom Algae - Oxygen - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab

Nualgi - Diatom Algae for Sewage Treatment - Waste Management - Climate CoLab

We can sack all the gravy train scientists and send them back to their stevenson's screens and the lefties will have to find something else to "care" about

[pjclarke]

We can sack all the gravy train scientists and send them back to their stevenson's screens and the lefties will have to find something else to "care" about

I admire your optimism, however the proposals are to use the product to treat sewage, you'd have to digest a hell of lot of that to make even a minimal impact of the gigatonnes of carbon we need to sequester ...

[EternalOptimist]

I admire your optimism, however the proposals are to use the product to treat sewage, you'd have to digest a hell of lot of that to make even a minimal impact of the gigatonnes of carbon we need to sequester ...

I don't think he means carbon. He probably means carbon dioxide

[DodgyAgent]

I admire your optimism, however the proposals are to use the product to treat sewage, you'd have to digest a hell of lot of that to make even a minimal impact of the gigatonnes of carbon we need to sequester ...

They're nano sized particles so easy to digest, float for a long time and come in small volumes. They reckon that to reduce CO2 they would need to fertilise just 1.5% of the worlds Oceans. Of course you should be pleased at the prospect that the planet may be saved. but of course you are not are you because something like this does not fit the narrative of the climate change zealots.

[pjclarke]

. They reckon that to reduce CO2 they would need to fertilise just 1.5% of the worlds Oceans.

Source?

[EternalOptimist]

Source?

When he says source, he doesn't really mean source.
He means readily identifiable link that has already been ad-homm attacked by his go-to site of dogma.

Sorry for interpreting his posts, but as a dogmatic he is incapable of forming an argument of his own and incapable of using language correctly.
e.g. subsidy
e.g. carbon

but to be fair, he is the pipeline. the sewer rather than the sewage