WatchOk let's start this debate by assuming that atmospheric scientists and policy wonks are correct: the Earth is getting hotter. Let's also assume that this is directly due to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
WHAT are we going to do about it? If this is such a planet destroying problem, don't you think we should stop messing around and fix it already?
The problem becomes this: How do we FIX atmospheric overheating on a global basis?
Let's explore the options, their benefits and limitations.
1) Stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is really the only solution that global warmists have proposed. It has many problems, not the least of which is the fact that the US and nearly every other developed nation uses a majority of fossil fuel combustion to produce energy. This is only getting worse as nations like China and India ramp up their industrialization. Folks in these countries are just at the point where they all want to own cars and drive everywhere. We have 400 million people in the USA. They have three times our number. If the US went "green" tomorrow and completely ceased use of fossil fuels for cars and electricity - somehow - we can be assured that in a few years China will make up the difference with its rapidly expanding economy and fuel use.
I propose that this method of fixing global warming is impossible to actually implement. Also scientists predict that complete implementation of their best models for cap and trade would require over a hundred years to lower earth temperatures by half a degree.
This method will only enrich lawyers and politicians and give scientists who toe the line welfare jobs for life. It won't actually fix anything.
2. ??!!!!
What's our second plan? Why haven't more solutions to this "critical" problem been proposed?
I've heard several that had a chance of working, but I'd like to see what the patnet community can come up with.
Also I'm sure that some people will say that I'm wrong about cap and trade being a totally non-viable solution. If you're in that camp, you need to give good reasons!
The world may be dying. How can we fix it?
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
How do we fix human nature, assuming it is the root cause?
Follow
Befriend (9)
168 threads
1,552 comments
Premium
Move to Alaska?
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,222 comments
31 male
Premium
Quit being greedy. Run your air conditioner full blast 24/7 with all your doors and windows open. Problem solved, next?
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
525 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
Ok so far we've got two people who basically say, "give up," and errc is either making a bad joke or is confused about how heat pumps like an AC unit actually work.
No wonder people don't take global warmists seriously. They offer this giant problem, offer an unworkable solution, and an alternative of "we're effed.".
Lazy!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Peter P says
By telling Dan8267 to hurry up and finish his mind-control device.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Quigley says
Great question. See this link:
www.withouthotair.com
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
525 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
That's a very informative book, but let me summarize using a quote I pulled from it in the "what to do now" chapter.
"Solving climate change is a complex topic, but in a single crude brush-
stroke, here is the solution: the price of carbon dioxide must be such that
people stop burning coal without capture. Most of the solution is captured in
this one brush-stroke because, in the long term, coal is the big fossil fuel.
(Trying to reduce emissions from oil and gas is of secondary importance
because supplies of both oil and gas are expected to decline over the next
50 years.)"
This "solution" is the exact same one that I have already asserted is unworkable, both for its deleterious effects on an already shaky world economy, the fact that there is no total energy alternative to fossil fuels, and those there are are expensive, and the fact that political force necessary to implement such draconian measures worldwide is nonexistent. We won't be convincing China, who pollutes its own rivers to the burning point and can't even manage to proude breathable air in its cities, to curb CO2 because of its potential "greenhouse gas" properties. How many other nations(that count) are willing to give up their sovereignty to an international commission?
It just ain't gonna happen, folks.
Other solutions to this problem exist. Haven't you heard of them?
Follow
Befriend (4)
336 threads
923 comments
7 Billion, be fruitful & multiply.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Quigley says
The only (realistic) solution I'm aware of: using more nuclear power generation instead of coal & natural gas:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml
That doesn't mean we *can't* use renewables. It's just that renewables can't provide *enough* energy by themselves. It'd be like Manhattanites trying to get their water from local wells alone.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
19 comments
Clearwater, FL
2. Grow more plants. I hear Bamboo is a great filter of carbon dioxide.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
There are only two solutions.
Your first stop putting C02 into the air and baring that remove the C02 from the air. (Yes, I have heard other solutions like filling our atmosphere with other particles to counteract the greenhouse effect, but those have more unknowns and may cause worse problems than the original C02)
Have any of the more workable solutions you have heard not included one of those two things?
All solutions would accomplish one of those two things. The question is, are there any realistic ways of doing one of those two things.
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,222 comments
31 male
Premium
Quigley says
time out. you mean that won't work? WE ARE FUCKED
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
leoj707 says
Nuclear power would at least *slow* CO2 emissions by replacing coal power.
Follow
Befriend (2)
15 threads
430 comments
Reston, VA
Conserve: Eat less meat. Drive less by combining trips, some telecommuting, etc., thermostat regulation, stop building Taj Ma Houses, grow some food, stop buying useless crap that wears out or goes out of fashion every other year.
Energy: develop biomass, solar, nuclear, wind, etc.
Knovel technology: sequestration, transport efficiency, new alt energy
Transport: public transport, some more walking/biking
Buildings: much better insulation when warranted by local need (best energy savings per buck)
Socio/economic: get people to believe, care, and implement these ideas instead of using everything under the sun as a reason to argue politics. Get economic systems in place to encourage action.
Personally, I think that the social issue is the biggest hurdle. Plenty of scientists are working on ways to reduce global warming and quantify this benefit. They may not get as much press as the climatologists and political summit-goers, but they are there.
As far as China and India go, we in the US need to set an example. We can hardly wag our fat fingers at the Chinese while we are stuffing our faces with meat, driving SUVs all over the place, and buying and using half of the products that they are producing. When China burns coal to make steel for a product used in the US, we can hardly complain about "their" global warming emissions. Europe and Japan are trying to lead. We need to join them and hope that we can succeed. By the way, there are a lot of successful stories of energy saving programs in Chindia and Europe that we in the US could learn from.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
525 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
Leoj707: "There are only two solutions."
It's this kind of thinking that ensures we never will find a workable solution. CO2 is hardly the only greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Methane also works that way, and water vapor is more effective at 1)solar radiation shielding, and 2) trapping infrared radiation than CO2 by a factor of 100. Why then, only focus on this one gas when attempting to cool the planet? One different idea was cloud formation over key oceanic positions.
Freak80: yes nuclear is an option, for certain nations. Others like Iran, well, everyone seems to get their panties in a wad when they do it. Nuclear is pretty safe and mostly carbon neutral. For achieving the goal of producing less CO2 for our mass energy needs, it is about the only option.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,267 comments
Premium
Quigley says
There have been several interesting ideas, but they don't favor either major political party. The Republicans insist that global warming is not occurring, even though it is. The Democrats recognize that it is occurring, but their only proposal is to raise taxes on carbon, which won't solve the problem at all, thus enabling the same policy to be repeated. (It's the logic of any failed policy, including most wars: "step one, use force; when that doesn't work, use more force.")
Pollution in the 1970s led to more cloud formation, which caused global cooling. It also caused serious problems like acid rain, so I'm not recommending deliberate pollution as a way of forming clouds, but there are probably better ways. Others have proposed arrays of small mirrors in orbit; the mirrors could rotate to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching areas that are suffering from heatwaves.
Methane can be reduced if we stop subsidizing beef, which is unhealthy anyway. Both major parties insist on subsidizing the most unhealthy foods. Also we should find some way of picking up the frozen methane off the ocean floor so it can be burned as fuel, maybe robotic crabs or something, because the methane sublimates and bubbles up to the atmosphere. There is a huge amount of it off the southeast coast of the U.S., so much in fact that some people have suggested it may account for some of the unusual number of boats lost in the "Bermuda Triangle." Emitting less methane, and burning more of it, would accomplish a lot more than trying to reduce carbon.
We could also stop recycling paper. That policy began in the 1970s, to "save trees," because at the time the lumber companies were not doing a good enough job of re-planting. Today most paper comes from sustainably harvested forests, so recycling paper to "save trees" makes as much sense as quitting bread to "save wheat." Trees are carbon sinks. Instead of using energy (and emitting carbon) to recycle old paper, we should grow more trees to produce new paper.
Free advice, worth every penny. It doesn't fit a major party's trench warfare talking points, so it will be ignored.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
Unless one is correct, assuming that C02 is not the major contributor to global climate change will lead to a high probability that workable solutions will not be found. We first need to agree on what is causing the warming in the first place.
I am well aware of the effect that water vapor and methane has on warming. That said, recent study has found that C02 is the major contributor to climate change. That is why the scientific community has focused on C02, not the other gasses.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Yes, it would slow CO2 emissions, but slowing them is not a solution.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
YesYNot says
I think the economics is the biggest hurdle. It is so much cheaper to just keep burning fossil fuels. That and the massive valuation we put on fossil fuel producers.
Here is an article that explains -- far better than I could -- the economic reasons why we will not stop using fossil fuels:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
curious2 says
Ug, thank you! It is nice to hear someone else say this.
I always get very skeptical looks (and sometimes straight out stink-eye) when I bring up the futility of recycling paper.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
curious2 says
You mean like the "defining marriage as 1 man + 1 woman = hate" talking point? ;-)
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
leoj707 says
Recycling paper does seem pretty silly doesn't it? I suppose if it's cheaper than harvesting "fresh" trees it wakes sense, but not otherwise.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Also, and/or if it caused less pollution to recycle than harvest, but it does not.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Or, perhaps a "marriage of 1 man + 1 man = unholy, against nature and disgusting to boot" talking point.
;)
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,267 comments
Premium
leoj707 says
Actually, we really don't, and if our other intractable disagreements are any indication it's probably better just to skip that step and consider what can we agree on. Climate has always changed, for various reasons, and we have no way of managing the process currently. Those who believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years (which alas most Republicans insist it's younger than) can also agree that climate change can exterminate the dominant species, e.g. large dinosaurs perished because they could not cope with global cooling. If we could somehow quit shouting about blame and denial, we might re-direct attention towards solutions.
Follow
Befriend (28)
171 threads
4,225 comments
Premium
The US needs to nuke 5 billion people who don't belong here.
Then claim eminent domain over the depopulated lands of the earth.
Then enslave non-US-citizen survivors.
If Romney puts this in his election campaign platform, guaranteed he'll win.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,267 comments
Premium
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says
That's an idea, combat global warming by inducing nuclear winter. BTW, the Mormons are also "preppers," with warehouses full of food and other supplies, for Mormons only of course.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
curious2 says
I agree that we need to stop the "shouting game", but we also need to agree on the cause of global warming. If everyone agrees that it is a problem that needs to be urgently dealt with, great! But, if half the people stubbornly believe that the only solution is to put smoke scrubbers on volcanoes and kill all other solutions then we have not solved anything.
But, yes we first need to agree that it is a problem in the first place. Then second we need to agree on the cause.
*tick-tock*
We, have still yet to agree that it is a major problem.
*tick-tock*
...
*tick-tock*
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
525 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
" the only solution is to put smoke scrubbers on volcanoes"
I think you're either getting this wrong intentionally or you really don't understand what has been proposed. To give a current example, the volcano in Iceland that erupted two years ago did a real number on weather here in the Northern hemisphere for a year or two. Here we had one of the coolest summers on record with the most rainfall as well. That helped end a years-long drought here in California that had reservoirs nearly dry and farmland turning into a dust bowl. That was one volcano. It spewed millions of tons of bad shit into the atmosphere, closed airports in Europe for about a month, and cooled the Earth appreciably, if temporarily.
Why not learn from Nature? We wouldn't even have to close any airports! Here's the link to a wall street journal article regarding this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
Neither, I was only using that comment as an example of how the cause of global warming needs to be agreed upon, and a large enough group that will only accept a non-solution (scrubbers on volcanoes) will lead to no solution. Even if the magnitude of the problem is agreed upon by all.
Quigley says
Yes, I am familiar with the idea of purposefully spewing particulates into the atmosphere in order to block out the sun and strike a balance. (FYI, Rush Limbaugh used to push the idea that volcano's were the cause of global warming -- not man)
As stated earlier in this thread pushing particulates into the air can cause a host of other problems. Due to the highly questionable nature of this type of solution I would need to see more data on the side effects before I would consider it to be an acceptable approach.
curious2 says
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
525 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
You say particulates. That's not the proposed solution. It's putting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere where it can act as an insulator. We already spew billions of tons of this into the lower atmosphere. This would just be redirecting it a few miles higher, where rather than causing acid rain it would cool the planet down. Think of it as a volcano MINIS the particulates.
Actually, this "wait and see" approach you recommend here is pretty nonsensical. On the on hand you say that the worldwide cap and trade idea is next to impossible, which I agree with. And you conclude that since this proposed solution ( assuming it would even work) is unworkable, the planet is doomed.
Along comes this new idea to save the planet in a different way and you want to cherry pick "side effects?"
That's like an appendicitis sufferer scheduled for surgery electing to postpone until some other solution can be found that doesn't leave a scar.
Ridiculous!
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,267 comments
Premium
Quigley says
Most appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics; no surgery, no scar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17611098
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
How do you guarantee that it is going to stay up in the upper atmosphere? A planet sized cloud of sulfur dioxide is not something that we want drifting down on us.
Quigley says
Wait and see? Where did I advocate that approach? I would love a miracle solution to come along, but I think the probability of that is very low.
Quigley says
You mean the solution of creating a stable shield of sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere? I think the idea of putting huge satellite mirrors to deflect sunlight is probably a cheaper and more realistic lasting solution.
Quigley says
I would not call this idea "new" it has been around for many years, and I have yet to hear a version of it that sounds like a workable solution. We don't even have a way that we could get the required amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, let alone know the implications of it all floating back down on us.
I would love to see a study that shows how a "shell" of sulfur dioxide could be created at just the right altitude that it would not float back down to earth yet not so far out that it just drifts out into space, and at the same time be thick enough to "shield" the earth.
Quigley says
No it is nothing like that. The surgery for appendicitis has a proven success rate will well documented prognosis. We don't even know how we could even get the sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere let alone what it would do the the planet. The "cure" could very well end up being worse than the disease.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,577 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
There's an extremely slim chance that scientists in the future can solve global warming by injecting aerosol particulate pollution directly into the upper atmosphere via VERY tall towers (or balloons) located around the earth, and take advantage of global cooling to offset global warming. The idea is you make the upper earth atmosphere more reflective.
I think this would work, but I don't think humans are going to be smart enough or unified enough to ever attempt it. There's an equally small chance that scientists will screw up, that they will make a mistake in the reflectivity calculations, and take the planet into an ice age. This argument will be used to defeat the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
Yes, it is reason 12 on this list as to why we might not want to geoengineer the atmosphere.
"12. Human error. Complex mechanical
systems never work perfectly. Humans
can make mistakes in the design,
manufacturing, and operation of
such systems. (Think of Chernobyl,
the Exxon Valdez, airplane crashes, and
friendly fire on the battlefield.) Should
we stake the future of Earth on a much
more complicated arrangement than
these, built by the lowest bidder?"
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Quigley says
If you are actually interested in weighing the pros and cons of pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere you may want to read this paper:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
I am still unconvinced that the risks are worth the benefits of trying it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,577 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
It's a catch22. By the time it becomes clear that desperate measures are necessary, the world will not be in any position to spend billions of dollars on a project that right wing nuts will claim isn't going to work.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
Desperate measures are needed today, by the time it becomes clear that desperate measures were needed in 2012 it will be too late for desperate measures.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,577 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
That's pretty much why I'm going to watch the show and assume the human race is going to destroy the planet. I don't think there is any salvation here.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,227 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Oh for God's sake!
Phase 1 - raise a gazillion dollars to fund project. (Mr Gates or Mr Buffet should be able to fund this without even having to move a decimal point in their checkbooks.)
Phase 2 - build a giant drill in Yellowstone or other comparable super caldera
Phase 3 - drill down a few thousand feet to just above the magma chamber
Phase 4 - detonate a series of super H bombs to open the drill hole to a reasonable size. A gigaton of energy should about do it.
The chamber pressure will be released, the chamber will erupt, and billions of gallons of SO2 and sunlight reflecting ash will be released into the stratosphere. Temperatures around the world will drop to ice age levels. Elephants will revert to mammoths and mastodons, panthers to sabertoothed cats, puppy dogs to dire wolves and somehow terror birds will again roam the plains of the world. The few humans remaining will revert to hairy, smelly beasts dwelling in the dark recesses of caves.
AGW problem solved, you're welcome.