• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Solution to Global Warming or . . . ?

macdoc said:
I really do not understand your position or their position and I consider it foolish.
Click to expand...

"foolish" is a term best reserved for those that care not for the consequences of one's own actions or who have failed to give careful and full consideration to their proposals. I can only speak to my own considerations, but they belie this appellation.

There is NO conceivable scenario that we will reach zero anthro GHG emissions.
Click to expand...

In absolute terms you are probably correct, but in substantive significance, the elimination of the use of coal, oil and natural gas as primary energy sources for electricity and transport, as well as the adoption of sustainable land-use practices, will practically eliminate the substantive significance of remaining anthro emissions. If we can shift our contribution from the surrent some 30+ billion tons of CO2/year to some few hundred million tons/year, that will fade our contributions to rounding error insignificance. If we can't do this, albedo engineering will worsen the problem, not make it better.

In the meantime blunting the onset of severity IS possible along several paths.
Waiting til it's all burned ( which is about the only way to get to zero ) will be catastrophic and THEN you want to try an obvious mitigation.

Lets GET sunburned and AFTER put the sun block on.
Geeez...:boggled:
Click to expand...

That is what you are proposing now. We are already sunburnt, now you want to slather on some sunblock and keep playing out in the sun...:boggled: indeed!

We are simply recommending that we step out of the sunshine, and then put on some medicated moisturizer as a more reasoned and reasonable course of action.
 
r-j said:
That is the scary part. (it it is true)
For 5 billion dollars it would be possible to lower the global temperature by two degrees? What if somebody didn't turn it off at that point. How long would it take to send the whole planet into a glacier phase?
Click to expand...
Actually in that scenario the opposite would be the really scary part: What if somebody did turn it off?

The problem: Our GHG emissions will stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

If proposed solution was to use geoengineering, for example trying and cooling the planet by changing global albedo with aerosols, they would stay in the atmosphere only for a short time (some years) and the effort would give only a short term effect.

So you would have to do it continuously. And you would have to do it for thousands of years because our GHG's would still be in there. And if you for some reason ever stopped you'd quickly feel the full force of global warming.

Hopefully it will stay in the category of barking mad ideas. We don't know how to do it (what, how much, where? etc), and we don't know what all of it's effects would be, and we would become depended on it for thousands of years.

There is no substitute for reducing our GHG emissions.

Raymond Pierrehumbert puts it well in his AGU 2012 Tyndall Lecture as he calls it "Damocles' world":
http://youtu.be/RICBu_P8JWI?t=54m45s
(a very good and recommended lecture, btw!)


ETA: AGU 2012 Fall Meeting had a session of climate engineering and carbon sequestration. Here's the related posters: GC51A: Climate Engineering and Carbon Sequestration Monitoring | Posters.
 
Last edited:
What would happen if somebody deliberately trying to change the entire planet through engineering?

Be it hotter or colder, is it possible to do?
 
r-j said:
What would happen if somebody deliberately trying to change the entire planet through engineering?
Click to expand...
We don't know what would happen. We're still learning what are all the various consequenses of our GHG emissions.

r-j said:
Be it hotter or colder, is it possible to do?
Click to expand...
Would be a big project but I think it unfortunately might be technologically and economically feasible (as we are already doing it). But doing it in a controlled manner aiming for specific effects without large scale harmful unintended consequences is beyond our knowledge.
 
Trakar said:
It is called a consistent position. Those arguing for a cessation and reversal of the current alterations in albedo and land-use, are arguing against additional alterations due to the problems that we know this will cause, and because of problems we don't know about that may make things worse than they are now. As stated before, option of very last resort only to be used after all anthro ghg emissions have been cut off.
Click to expand...

You are arguing that because changing the planet's atmosphere and albedo in one way has negative consequences, changing it in a different way is a bad idea

That's not "a consistent position" (it's not necessarily inconsistent either, but there's nothing inconsistent with the idea that one sort of change can be used to ameliorate the problems associated with another sort of change)

Personally I think that the possible negative consequences (including ones that we haven't foreseen) are real and serious, but that only suggests that we should study this more, as the issue is not whether or not there are negative consequences, but whether a particular solution is a net benefit when all aspects are considered

I'm very much for transistioning away from fossil fuels, but that's simply not going to happen quickly enough and we need to be considering other solutions in the mean time, not as substitutes for alternative energy sources, but as a way of dealing with the problem that is here, now
 
well said :clap:
One reason I advocate a solution in the South Pacific as opposed to global is the combination of very high incoming solar radiation into a deeply absorptive ocean and absence of land and biome nearby.

Powering a system is feasible with solar panels and there is a constant traffic of ships which also could be used as mentioned in the micro- bubble study.

I think we need to be pragmatic and buy as much time and ease the transition - luckily the orbital is working for us tho it's tiny - it all helps.

The funding is there in the form of the existing 7 Trillion dollar fossil industry to slice some of that spending off to carbon neutral.

The lack of will on the part of politicians in too many nations is the primary roadblock but in reality we need BOTH lowering carbon and other mitigation of change strategies.

Bill Gross called is a million small Manhattan projects to deal with the challenge.
We collectively dodged a very serious threat ( most people do not understand how serious ) from CFCs with the signing and execution of the Montreal Accord so there is a successful model to build on.

IN that case tho there was not the scale of resistance that the fossil companies have thrown up.

As mentioned before - I'd settle for killing coal use in my lifetime and subbing in gas or nuclear or renewables -

•••

Nice to have a heavy weight in this finally.....we'll see how he does against entrenched interests.

Barack Obama promises US action on climate

* Updated 16:46 23 January 2013 by Andy Coghlan
* For similar stories, visit the Climate Change and US national issues Topic Guides

President Barack Obama yesterday vowed to put the fight against global warming at the heart of his next four-year term in office.

Sweeping aside years of American prevarication on whether to act on emissions, Obama promised the US would lead the world in its efforts to curb global warming, and in the development of the technologies to achieve this goal.

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," he said on Monday in his inaugural address to the nation.
Click to expand...

more

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23098-barack-obama-promises-us-action-on-climate.html
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
You are arguing that because changing the planet's atmosphere and albedo in one way has negative consequences, changing it in a different way is a bad idea

That's not "a consistent position" (it's not necessarily inconsistent either, but there's nothing inconsistent with the idea that one sort of change can be used to ameliorate the problems associated with another sort of change)

Personally I think that the possible negative consequences (including ones that we haven't foreseen) are real and serious, but that only suggests that we should study this more, as the issue is not whether or not there are negative consequences, but whether a particular solution is a net benefit when all aspects are considered

I'm very much for transistioning away from fossil fuels, but that's simply not going to happen quickly enough and we need to be considering other solutions in the mean time, not as substitutes for alternative energy sources, but as a way of dealing with the problem that is here, now
Click to expand...

Any attempt to seriously promote geoengineering that does not demand CO2 cutoff or dramatic reduction (~90+%) will simply be seized upon as an excuse to continue BAU emissions and policies {sarcasm}until alternate energy sources "mature" and are capable of replacing coal, oil and gas without government subsidies, afterall, we will be spending a lot of money trying to shield ourselves from the sun, surely you wouldn't want us to spend all that extra money propping up flawed alternative energy boonswaggles would you? One thing at a time, and the longer we wait to tackle the problem the more technology will likely produce a better cheaper answer,...or more geofinagling to avoid cutting back on our emissions or changing the way we currently do things.{/sarcasm}

Meanwhile the oceans continue to rise, increasingly acidic rain will continue to destroy biodiversity and already stressed habitats. Respiratory diseases uptick, and all the other consequences already discussed.

This is not simply a matter of science (though the science of GeoEng. is fraught with its own problems and perils) it is also an issue of politics and economics, none of which seem ripe for seriously tackling GeoEng. solutions.

Yes, I have no problem with continuing to study and investigate geoEng concepts, but none of the current ones are without serious, known flaws and problems that would exasperate rather than address climate and environmental issues. I hope that such will never be needed, but both the known and the unknown potential problems with these technologies eliminate their reasoned usage and application prior to dramatic reductions of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Once we begin purposefully tinkering with the natural systems on a global scale, the tinkerers open themselves to charges of liability everytime a flood, storm, or weather extremis event causes damage.
 
Has nothing much to lose at this point.
I'm hoping the courts will engage in nailing coal plants - that's what finally nailed S02 emitters.

This is good news - replacing a 50 MW fossil fuel plant with some load leveling tech.


Texas mega-battery aims to green up the grid

* 01 February 2013 by Hal Hodson
* Magazine issue 2902. Subscribe and save
* For similar stories, visit the Energy and Fuels and US national issues Topic Guides

IN A remote corner of west Texas, in the shadow of a sprawling wind farm, one of the world's largest batteries was switched on last week. Deep in oil country, the battery is at the vanguard of efforts to help renewable energy sources realise their potential and, ultimately, oust fossil fuels in the US.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729026.000-texas-megabattery-aims-to-green-up-the-grid.html

This in combination with wind/solar and base load of shale gas could replace coal and get something rolling.

If the coal subsidies were removed and the EPA C02 standards enforced and even strengthened there could be change quickly as it does not have the up front costs of nuclear.

I'm pleased with Ontario. This is a large manufacturing economy and we've moved in a decade from 25% coal to less than 3% and that due to be phased out this year.

http://ontario.sierraclub.ca/en/coa...uinty-announces-dates-close-nanticoke-lambton
 
Last edited:
Quick question:

would this require fresh or saltwater? and if the former only, how many gallons per day are we talking and how would this impact the available fresh water sources globally?

sorry, I guess that was 3 questions
 
It's very uncertain as to the scaleable nature but power plants use enormous amounts of fresh water for cooling and this would just be part of that use. Heat usually improves a catalytic reaction.

I don't know what the medium for the reaction would be. It would have no discernible effect on fresh water supply. That's a critical issue on it's own.
 
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Since we are "riding the tiger" of Global Warming (A or null A) this may be a solution.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Why do you think a " solution" is necessary?

The simple , cost free solution to ecological damage is to stop having so many kids. That's it.
And plant trees.


The difficulty is getting people to do it . So long as people come up with crazy fixes, we will persist in ignoring the staggeringly obvious fact that we need to reduce population growth.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Why do you think a " solution" is necessary?

The simple , cost free solution to ecological damage is to stop having so many kids. That's it.
And plant trees.


The difficulty is getting people to do it . So long as people come up with crazy fixes, we will persist in ignoring the staggeringly obvious fact that we need to reduce population growth.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that stabalising the population is important, in fact I would argue that we need to stop population growth rather than just reduce it, we also need to stabalise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and planting trees is a good idea, as trees whilst they're growing act as carbon sinks, but on their own they're not going to stop global warming.

Basically we've got to stop putting carbon that's been trapped in rocks for millions of years into the air.

There is now almost 50% more CO2 in the air then there was before the industrial revolution and our continued reliance on coal, oil and gas is raising the level about 2ppm every year. Here's Richard Aley on why CO2 is he biggest control knob of the climate's thermostat
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
 
Soapy Sam said:
Why do you think a " solution" is necessary?

The simple , cost free solution to ecological damage is to stop having so many kids. That's it.
And plant trees.
Click to expand...
If everyone on the planet decided, today to never have another child, there would still be 7 billion of us.

And we'd still burn coal to supply our energy needs for the rest of our lives.

But that particular scenario is very unlikely. What is likely is that population will stabilise somewhere around 9 billion some time around 2050. There are some things that could be done to maybe lower that number somewhat, but even if it were to stabalize today, we'd still be producing CO2 at an accelerating rate, because the developing world is, well, developing.

So, how can we both allow for that development and reduce the rate at which we are adding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?

Or, baring that, do something else to mitigate the outcome?

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable question to ask, given the facts of the situation.

The difficulty is getting people to do it . So long as people come up with crazy fixes, we will persist in ignoring the staggeringly obvious fact that we need to reduce population growth.
Click to expand...
I'm all for reducing population growth. How should we go about it? Development. Education (particularly for women). Healthcare (particularly for children). Etc.

I agree that we should be doing those things, and now, but in no way does that suggest that we shouldn't be addressing global warming separately, because no matter how much we focus on the above, CO2 will continue to be pumped into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate, and the climate will continue to change.
 
Roboramma said:
If everyone on the planet decided, today to never have another child, there would still be 7 billion of us.

And we'd still burn coal to supply our energy needs for the rest of our lives.

But that particular scenario is very unlikely. What is likely is that population will stabilise somewhere around 9 billion some time around 2050. There are some things that could be done to maybe lower that number somewhat, but even if it were to stabalize today, we'd still be producing CO2 at an accelerating rate, because the developing world is, well, developing.

So, how can we both allow for that development and reduce the rate at which we are adding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?

Or, baring that, do something else to mitigate the outcome?

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable question to ask, given the facts of the situation.


I'm all for reducing population growth. How should we go about it? Development. Education (particularly for women). Healthcare (particularly for children). Etc.

I agree that we should be doing those things, and now, but in no way does that suggest that we shouldn't be addressing global warming separately, because no matter how much we focus on the above, CO2 will continue to be pumped into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate, and the climate will continue to change.
Click to expand...


Hence my point 2. Plant trees- which is shorthand for "Don't crap on the doorstep, don't waste resources...and plant trees.

But any and all of that is not going to help if population continues climbing. It will merely prolong the agony.

As for predictions that global population will peak at X billion in year Y, sorry, but I have no faith in any such guesses and I don't feel we as a species should be relying on them.
 
Windmills and solar power could be used to desalinate and irrigate the vast deserts of the world, creating more than enough new growth to send us right into an ice age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom