Well, speaking about 'other fields' I believe the current generation is seeing the fulfillment of Revelation 11:18 but that's way off topic for this forum.

Bluntly, I think we're powerlessly watching Mother Earth being wrecked, and there's little we can do to stop the rot. Oh yes, we can do our little bit, but solving this involves real pain, and you can't put that accross in a democracy.

Well past retiring age I again is asked to step in for full at the job, something that will drain energy. On the other hand I will earn some extra that I can spend on my hobby..
LQ is the only social media I'm a member of, so please bear over with postings and irrelevant questions.
But - I'm preparing the samples below representing the lower PETM boundary + the first of many volcanic ash layers for chemical analysis from a ISO certified laboratory by ICP-AES (atomic emission spectroscopy)-
Similar analyses will be run on the bottom red layers (that should represent the first 10000 years of the PETM) and the ash layer above originating from volcanic activity in the "North Atlantic Igneous Republic".
Regarding sea water chemistry quantitative analysis of Chloride, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Calcium, Boron and Sulphur is ordered, and as indicator for biological surface productivity (sediments originating from algae and diatoms) the lab will calculate Silicium and a Carbon / Nitrogen ratio (I will ask the chemists to elaborate on how to interpret this value).
What differs between the hobbyist approach and scientific methods is that samples by researchers is dissolved in Hydroflouric acid (HF) to dissolve silicates, where the hobbyist will examine samples dissolved only in distilled water preserving silicates, and in this way able to visualise interactions between diatoms and dinoflaggelates (do dinoflaggelates prey on diatoms? and perhaps even use silicate crystals as armor?)
Below is visualised what could be interpret as a dinoflaggelate belonging to the species "Apectodinium", a proxy for early Eocene.
It is seen together with transparent squares of glass and chains of minute diatoms perhaps engulfed by the dinoflaggelate, where the many square plates of crystallised silicate could have been used for armor?
Before I confirm a final order (7-800 GBP?) I would like to ask for comments, advice ets from the skilled and diverse community here on LQ (eg. - do silicate in a pure chemical environment crystallise as minute square plates?). Thanks in advance.

Attached Thumbnails

   

I can't comment on the chemical analysis question, but I do know that any fossil fuels that were burned were insignificant so the earth obviously could and did recover.

Back on topic, This Idea looks as if it might work, but personally, I doubt if the volume would be big enough to make any difference.They are taking out thousands of tons from the sea, while fossil fuels put in millions of tons in the air. So there's that additional conversion to be done.

It is not that what you said was false, but that the premise, while true, does not apply to the issue and the conclusion is obviously invalid.

The danger was never in how much carbon fuel (fossil and otherwise: but carbon based) was burned but how many
(and how FAST) carbon compounds were generated and introduced into the atmosphere to change the balance.

The article does discuss how many such plants would have to exist and run for how long to make the required difference. It also mentions that this project needs to be taken into account with all of the OTHER recovery projects. We are unlikely to completely implement any single project to save the world, but we ARE likely to implement ENOUGH projects incompletely so that the combined effect WILL save the world. The question now is can and will we do so in time.

Many of us are working on that.

In one sense that's old technology. Heat exchange is used by all modern boilers, including mine. The hot exhaust fumes from the gas burners are used to warm up the tepid water coming back from the radiator circuit before they get vented to the exterior. What is new here is the use of "dirty" fumes from cooking, which is technically a bigger ask.

"Helion announces world’s first fusion energy purchase agreement with Microsoft
New facility aims to deliver at least 50 MW and begin producing electricity by 2028, dramatically shortening the projected timeline for commercially viable fusion energy" https://www.helionenergy.com/article...ith-microsoft/

Watch that timeline stretch - that's my guess.

"More than 40 years after the country voted to phase out nuclear power, Sweden is now looking to build more nuclear reactors after its parliament formally abandoned its 100% renewable energy target to meet net-zero by 2045.

On Tuesday the country modified its net zero targets to 100% “fossil-free” which its right-leaning government creates the conditions for the return of nuclear power to the country’s energy mix.

“We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament." https://www.westernstandard.news/bus...98c97c6f5.html

Any renewable energy system needs what is called baseload energy: a form of energy that can fill the gaps when the sun isn't shining and the wind doesn't blow. And there are really only two candidates for that: nuclear and really efficient energy storage. Since storage technology (particularly batteries) is not developing fast enough, that means nuclear.

Countries like Germany closed down their nuclear reactors after Fukushima, which was a stupid thing to do because Germany isn't subject to tsunamis. Now they are dependent on Russian gas. When will people realise that not producing fossil fuels yourself isn't green if it just means that you import them instead?

Germany is not subject to Tsunamis, but they do share borders with Russia and other surviving USSR offsprings. As we have seen in Ukraine, that can lead to greater risk and destruction than Japan experienced due to that particular Tsunami. Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal energy are far less of a risk to the world than Nuclear energy. Of all the "dirty" energy sources nuclear is, in the SHORT term, one of the best. In the LON term, it may be one of the worst. We need to ensure that it is a temporary solution.

@wpeckham - Condensing all forms of energy production via nuclear reactions into "one of the worst" is akin to never drinking water, let alone go swimming, because some people have drowned in it. The worst has been the fission facilities built on land that use the design model proven good for submarines. Nevertheless, as the worst, the actual track record of even those facilities is dramatically better than every other form of energy production. The reason this may seem more dangerous, more harmful, or even questionable is simply because on a human level we are more frightened of invisible forces and especially ones beyond our ken or control. Science Fiction movies like "The China Syndrome" greatly increased such public fears based on overwrought fictional data. That such a movie even today is not considered SciFi even though it bears resemblance to "Godzilla", "Soylent Green" and "Andromeda Strain" is an example of the perception of fiction as non-fiction when it is harmonious with prejudice.

In both areas of nuclear energy production, fission and fusion, despite the reactions of governments and scientists reacting to overblown public fears that have seriously curtailed inquiry and development, major advances from the submarine model have taken place and this is true for much smaller modular installations designed to serve a handful of homes or a single industry as well as those capable of supplying communities numbering in the millions.

In my view considering the accelerated demands for energy, we have no choice but to explore, refine and produce modern forms of nuclear energy production to meet those needs. Whatever harm even the most hardcore denier can imagine, short of wildly unrealistic scenarios like global meltdown or local black hole creation , the actual alternative futures appear ultimately far worse for future generations.