patrick.net

How do we fix human nature, assuming it is the root cause?

Move to Alaska?

Quit being greedy. Run your air conditioner full blast 24/7 with all your doors and windows open. Problem solved, next?

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!

Peter P says

How do we fix human nature, assuming it is the root cause?

By telling Dan8267 to hurry up and finish his mind-control device.

Quigley says

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.

Great question. See this link:
www.withouthotair.com

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?

7 Billion, be fruitful & multiply.

Quigley says

Other solutions to this problem exist. Haven't you heard of them?

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.

2. Grow more plants. I hear Bamboo is a great filter of carbon dioxide.

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.

Quigley says

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!

time out. you mean that won't work? WE ARE FUCKED

leoj707 says

All solutions would accomplish one of those two things. The question is, are there any realistic ways of doing one of those two things.

Nuclear power would at least *slow* CO2 emissions by replacing coal power.

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.

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.

Quigley says

One different idea was cloud formation over key oceanic positions.

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.

Quigley says

It's this kind of thinking that ensures we never will find a workable solution.

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

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect... Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.

* * * * *

A companion study…shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75percent... However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

freak80 says

leoj707 says

All solutions would accomplish one of those two things. The question is, are there any realistic ways of doing one of those two things.

Nuclear power would at least *slow* CO2 emissions by replacing coal power.

Yes, it would slow CO2 emissions, but slowing them is not a solution.

YesYNot says

Get economic systems in place to encourage action.

Personally, I think that the social issue is the biggest hurdle.

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

curious2 says

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.

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.

curious2 says

It doesn't fit a major party's trench warfare talking points, so it will be ignored.

You mean like the "defining marriage as 1 man + 1 woman = hate" talking point? ;-)

leoj707 says

I always get very skeptical looks (and sometimes straight out stink-eye) when I bring up the futility of recycling paper.

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.

freak80 says

leoj707 says

I always get very skeptical looks (and sometimes straight out stink-eye) when I bring up the futility of recycling paper.

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.

Also, and/or if it caused less pollution to recycle than harvest, but it does not.

freak80 says

curious2 says

It doesn't fit a major party's trench warfare talking points, so it will be ignored.

You mean like the "defining marriage as 1 man + 1 woman = hate" talking point? ;-)

Or, perhaps a "marriage of 1 man + 1 man = unholy, against nature and disgusting to boot" talking point.

;)

leoj707 says

We first need to agree on what is causing the warming in the first place.

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.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

[Combat Hairstylist] Romney

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.

curious2 says

leoj707 says

We first need to agree on what is causing the warming in the first place.

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...If we could somehow quit shouting about blame and denial, we might re-direct attention towards solutions.

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*

" 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

Quigley says

" 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.

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

volcano...erupted...one of the coolest summers...helped end a years-long drought...cooled the Earth appreciably, if temporarily.
Why not learn from Nature?

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

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.

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!

Quigley says

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.

Most appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics; no surgery, no scar.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17611098

Quigley says

You say particulates. That's not the proposed solution. It's putting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere where it can act as an insulator.

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

Actually, this "wait and see" approach you recommend here is pretty nonsensical.

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

And you conclude that since this proposed solution ( assuming it would even work) is unworkable, the planet is doomed.

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

Along comes this new idea to save the planet in a different way and you want to cherry pick "side effects?"

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

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.

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.

Quigley says

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?"

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.

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.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

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.

You could do the same thing with a plague, and not get any of the blame.

At $15k/lb to launch ANYTHING just into low earth orbit I don't think the mirror idea is a good one.

It'd be shredded by all the crap whizzing around the earth in short order anyway.

Maybe this issue is being revisited?
Does anyone still believe that the US has the power to reduce global carbon emissions?

Quigley says

Does anyone still believe that the US has the power to reduce global carbon emissions?

Alone? no.

With a "coalition of the willing"? yes.

Can emissions be reduced without the US in cooperation? no.

Will the US make any serious effort to reduce emissions? no.

CO2 to oil is ridiculous. Any chemist could tell you that the energy required to deoxidize a molecule is >>> the reverse. So it would be like riding a wagon down a hill and when you get to the bottom, you have to push it back up the hill. Except it just rained and the ground is now muddy and it's going to be a real bitch.
Also the space elevator is a brilliant concept but there are many many unsolved engineering problems with it, besides the fact that it would cost about the GNP of the US for a year or more.

Ok since this idiot deleted my comment in his thread I will repost it here. WARNING: do not post comments on any of his threads! He deletes anyone who disagrees.

KarlRoveIsScum deleted this comment of yours:
He's right. The US contributes only 16% of worldwide carbon emissions, and our emissions have decreased over the last decade thanks to more efficient technology and alternative energy sources being developed. This has all been done without the carbon tax proposed by al gore and his ilk. However the carbon output of the rest of the world has increased dramatically, as developing nations like china, Indonesia, India, and the rest of Asia has required more energy consumption to fuel their industry.
The only reason that they signed the treaty that we did not was that it gave them a free pass to pollute. These developing nations will not sign a treaty that requires them to pay a global commission to oversee their carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions worldwide will only increase from here. This, as rational humans, we must accept as fact. What to do about it is another issue. Clearly attacking emissions with sheer political effort will not work. Technology may help tho. Several proposals for decreasing worldwide temperatures have been made that would work, with minimal environmental blowback.