Solving Global Warming

[valis]

Not yet!

I'd be willing to wager that he is not going to state that "global warming does not exist".

 

[AtaraX]

Responses From Las Vegas

Hey, I a have been crazy busy at work working ahead to take some time off to come to Las Vegas for TAM5. Now that I am in Vegas anxiously waiting for the festivities to begin. I have some time to write a whole mess of replies. I hope I have a chance to meet many of you in person.

Volcanic gassing happens regardless of the presence of a moon. A nearby large moon helps gas from a planet bleed off into space.

That's interesting. So one method of making Venus more Earth like would be to bleed off the atmosphere using a mass object like the moon. Of course moving such a massive object into orbit around Venus would present its own challenges.

I guess we solved the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling a little bit too well? So now we've got, what, Global Warming? Why don't we just undo a bit of the Global Cooling fix?

Hint. The French Government believes in Global Warming. Al Gore believes in Global Warming. Major Hollywood movie stars and rock stars around the world believe in Global Warming. Even Paris Hilton and Britney Spears believe in Global Warming. Yeah there's plenty of proof against the whole "George Bush is being paid off by Halliburton to let Global Warming continue" thing, but the best proof it's BS is who DOES believe in it.

Still not convinced? Okay, the heavy ammo... CHER believes in it.

All in, All done.

I'm sure all these people believe in gravity too but gravity is just a theory.

I find your diametric elephant versus ass thinking myopic. Does not matter whether it is my worst enemy or my best friend putting forward an argument I will base my acceptance on their supporting evidence.

3 facts supported by evidence.
1. The Earth's temperature has been rising over all for the past hundred years and the rate of temperature increase has also been increasing. This will clearly have dire consequences if the trend continues into the next century.
2. Human activity has increased the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by more than 3 fold in the last hundred years. We know how much fossil fuels we burned; there is no denying this increase is our fault.
3. Ice cores show us a direct strong correlation between atmosphere carbon dioxide level and global temperature for hundreds of thousands of years.

The contention against human caused global warming has been that correlation is not necessarily proof for causation. But we know that human activity has had the power to radically change the atmosphere why would this atmospheric change not lead to climate change?

There's probably an easier way to get the same effect than using rubber sheeting. Create artificial upwellings from the bottom. Nutrients in the deep oceans don't cycle quickly. They basically sink to the bottom and stay there. Pump water up from the deep ocean in currently nutrient deprived areas (there's a lot of that apparently) and you've got more biomass.

That sounds like an interesting way to do it too. But would that allow for harvesting? Also what would stop the nutrient from just rapidly sinking again and how would you create the artificial upwellings?

Don't let the overwhelming scientific consensus impede your political rhetoric though.

Well said.

Earth's climate has changed drastically before without mankind's help. Perhaps by attempting to stop global warming we may cause an environmental disaster worse than the one we are trying to prevent.

Yes, making things worse is a risk but I don't see how we could do that by increasing the Earth's accumulated biomass. Also sitting idle in the face of foreseeable disaster is not in our nature as human beings.

A large number of trees were blown down in Stanley Park, and some provincial minister made a comment on the news about how "this is the kind of thing you have to expect with global warming". Wha?! Where's the connection?

There needs to be a lot more science and a lot less speculation on this particular topic.

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation and wild speculation going around but I don't think the solution is to end all discussion of it and just hand the problem to the scientific researchers.

We need to increase the public understanding of science and critical thinking so people are better equipped to understand and react to these issues.

Certainly we can't, and another reason is the presence of life in a big enough way to have shaped the planet already - see under Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere. Or AGW, for that matter. Life will adjust, and by adjusting it will influence. It's gone through a lot worse than this in the past, and prospered. HomSap can't say the same, but who's to say it won't? In a few centuries all this will be history. See under Salutory Lesson and Hubris.

I agree. No matter how bad global warming gets it won't lead to an end of all life on Earth. If you just conceptualize the problem the way I did in the opener it becomes clear. No matter how bad it gets there will be carbon fixing photosynthetic organisms to take advantage of the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere our actions we leave them with.

The destruction of humanity by global warming is also very unlikely. The probable result is global cataclysmic misery.

That may be part of the solution, but I think that it is important to know if the change in the climate is due to human activity, and if so, can we change our habits so that the climate stops changing.

We are responsible for the atmospheric change so we are also probably responsible for the climate change.


Just changing our habits has become a dangerously comforting platitude. Many people with the affluence to contribute to solving the problem feel that if they buy beeswax candles, drink organic orange juice and turn off the water while brushing their teeth that they are doing their part. The problem will not be solved by conservation alone. What is needed is radical new energy sources and methods of restoring the carbon fixed by biomass like algae farming.

After all, there are a lot more species on the Earth than just us humans. We might be able to adapt to a changing climate, but we would lose many species that can't.

Well helping animals makes people feel warm and fuzzy what really gives them impetus to act is helping themselves.

We're probably wasting our time trying to think what the right question is.

Comments like this one are why I like you so much.

If we're going to adapt to constant change we'll have to be much lighter on our feet, much lighter than 6 billion people. As a species and a culture we can probably do that. Whether we, living in the Golden Age, would find that culture atttractive is doubtful. It's a lot less doubtful that future generations will despise ours.

I don't think this will be the last golden age for humanity and I doubt future generations will care our plight or legacy enough to hate us. Just as we don't waste our time hating the Roman Empire for its excess and decadence nor do we despise the medieval Europe for its ignorance in succumbing to the Black Plague. We will not be considered that important by future generations. They will be too busy obsessing about the most important generation, one's own.

Climate change was ALWAYS happening. The climate WILL change. It has happened before, it will happen again.

One's death is also inevitable but one takes measures on a daily basis to postpone death.

We do not have the technology to control an entire planet's climate. We had better start thinking about adjusting our civilisations to the reality of the fact our climates are going to change no matter what schemes we come up with to try and hold the tide back.

Ah, but if our technology has been inadvertently changing the planet's atmosphere and climate for the last hundred years then we must by definition have the technology to change the planet's climate.

It's irrelevant. You will still be covered in water. All that has happened is to delay the inevitable.

Your whole existence as a living organism, the reason for your consciousness is to delay the inevitable. We are using the energy of the sun to fight against the one way arrow of entropy, the inevitable heat death (or collapse depending one the mass of the universe), the end off all things. You can despair over the futility of it or find purpose and liberation in it. Like the Charge of the Light Brigade the only think certain is our deaths.

Or maybe I've just missed all that discussion but I don't think I've seen anyone who talks about climate change ever address this. All I've ever seen is arguments along the line of, "if we don't do X environmentally good thing then Y disastrous scenario will happen," the implication being that doing X will entirely mitigate the occurrence of Y. When Y is climate change this is entirely misleading from my perspective.

I'd be entirely willing to be shown wrong here.

I agree that there is too many nonsensical hard sells in the environmental movement. "Recycle or end up in a sea of garbage!" Type stuff. But I would say to you that we have to try, we have to act, for in the end, it is all we have.

The natural climate has varied enormously over the history of our planet.

I wonder, for example, how Europe would cope with another ice age (I could skate to the continent) or the US with a sustained period of draught turning it into a dustbowl? We rely a great deal on the temperate climate we find ourselves in.

The cell evolved as a response to regulate the hostile environment early molecular replicators found themselves in. Multicelluar organisms developed as a response to the hostile environment single celled organisms found themselves in. Cities and agriculture developed as an innovation to the hostile environment individual humans found themselves in. Now regulation of the planetary environment will be the response to the hostile environment civilization finds itself in.

Apart from the serious scientists who don't*

I have presented evidence it is happening. Can you please cite some sources of serious scientist who provide evidence it is not happening? Or at least present some evidence to me it is not happening.

 

[cyborg]

Ah, but if our technology has been inadvertently changing the planet's atmosphere and climate for the last hundred years then we must by definition have the technology to change the planet's climate.

Control is not the same as change.

We may be able to effect a change (that is almost trivially obvious as our roles as biological entities plays a part in the carbon cycle) - we certainly have no idea how to control it.

I can change a glass into a smashed glass for sure but I might have a real hard time getting the shards to be just how I want them to be.

Change and control are clearly not synonymous in this discussion.

You can despair over the futility of it or find purpose and liberation in it.

My point is not that I am despairing - merely that I do believe the talk on climate change misses the fundamental point. Our climate has always been changing irrespective of us. It has not always been as hospitable as it is today. This is just one of the many environmental cycles we experience.

Hence the idea that you can 'solve' global warming seems as sensible as the idea that Cnut could 'solve' the problem of the tide coming in. Now, later, whatever. We need to get used to the idea that our climate is not always going to be the same as it is today.

But I would say to you that we have to try, we have to act, for in the end, it is all we have.

I'd rather try and act in an endeavour that has the potential of success. Preventing our climate from changing (however it does so) is clearly not going to happen, whether or not we are slowing it, speeding it up or whatever. Hence I am simply arguing it is a far more sensible and pragmatic question to ask how we should deal with the environment we will find ourselves in - rather than trying to fight natural forces we cannot control and try to force the environment to be to our liking.

Now regulation of the planetary environment will be the response to the hostile environment civilization finds itself in.

We do not have the understanding, let alone the technology, for such a feat.

We need to deal with the historical fact of climatic cycles. That is the reality today.

 

[Grimoire]

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation and wild speculation going around but I don't think the solution is to end all discussion of it and just hand the problem to the scientific researchers.

We need to increase the public understanding of science and critical thinking so people are better equipped to understand and react to these issues.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am not advocating an end to discussion. I just think that having public personalities with no background in science making wild speculations is a bad thing. It doesn't contribute to a solution, and it gives people the wrong idea about what is real science and what is just the opinion of some doped up bimbo with large silicon implants in a tight dress.

Part of the problem is, at least with me, is that it is hard to know what is real science and what is just the spoutings of celebrity. When a celebrity talks about global warming in one breath, and then their magic red string in another, I will usually distrust anything they say, even if correct. You end up with a backlash.

Even if what they say was scientifically accurate, it looks like hokum because they are obviously not credible. I think we need more science and less celebrity.

 

[Buckaroo]

Volcanic gassing happens regardless of the presence of a moon. A nearby large moon helps gas from a planet bleed off into space. Our atmoshpere is much thinner than Venus' largely because we have a nearby moon and Venus does not. Venus has so much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not because it got hot, but because it kept outgassing (as the earth still does) via volcanic erruptions over a few billion years but didn't have a moon to suck any of that atmosphere away. This difference means that we cannot really look to Venus as a predictor of what "runaway" carbon dioxide buildup on earth might look like.

Huh? This is not at all true -- the reason Venus' atmosphere is as it is is because of the lack of surface water. Venus lost its water inventory early on because the atmosphere was warm and moist, which allowed UV dissociation of the vapor, followed by hydrogen escape to space. Since there was no longer any liquid water, the carbon cycle was shut down, and all the CO2 hung around to exacerbate the process. There is no obvious a priori reason to believe that the same thing couldn't one day occur on Earth.

 

[varwoche]

I just think that having public personalities with no background in science making wild speculations is a bad thing. It doesn't contribute to a solution, and it gives people the wrong idea about what is real science and what is just the opinion of some doped up bimbo with large silicon implants in a tight dress.

Even if what they say was scientifically accurate, it looks like hokum because they are obviously not credible. I think we need more science and less celebrity.

Tell me about it!

Every time a/gw psuedo-skeptics cite Michael Crichton (ad nauseum), or paid Exxon shills such as Mallloy@junkscience, or right-wing lobbyists such as DRI, or Lyndon Larouche, or bumbling associate economics professors, or oil industry businessmen, or coal mining engineers, or "here", or yes, even construction workers, it rather boggles the mind. And no, I'm not making it up that these citations all took place "here" on a skeptical forum.

Part of the problem is, at least with me, is that it is hard to know what is real science and what is just the spoutings of celebrity.

It needn't be hard. Just ignore celebrities and other dubious sources and look to the science.

 

[AtaraX]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am not advocating an end to discussion. I just think that having public personalities with no background in science making wild speculations is a bad thing. It doesn't contribute to a solution, and it gives people the wrong idea about what is real science and what is just the opinion of some doped up bimbo with large silicon implants in a tight dress.

Even if what they say was scientifically accurate, it looks like hokum because they are obviously not credible. I think we need more science and less celebrity.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree. Also I think the quicker we can come up with viable solution to fill the existing solution void, the quicker the wild speculation will end.

Control is not the same as change.

We may be able to effect a change (that is almost trivially obvious as our roles as biological entities plays a part in the carbon cycle) - we certainly have no idea how to control it.

I can change a glass into a smashed glass for sure but I might have a real hard time getting the shards to be just how I want them to be.

Change and control are clearly not synonymous in this discussion.

But don't you see that once we realize how our actions (which we control) change the system we gain indirect control of the system. Yes, I agree that the technology doesn't currently exist but I see no reason why it couldn't exist in short order if we put our minds to it.

I can change a glass into a smashed glass for sure but I might have a real hard time getting the shards to be just how I want them to be.

We can melt the shards of the glass down and remake the glass or anything else we desire from the material. With knowledge comes power and control.

My point is not that I am despairing - merely that I do believe the talk on climate change misses the fundamental point. Our climate has always been changing irrespective of us. It has not always been as hospitable as it is today. This is just one of the many environmental cycles we experience.

Hence the idea that you can 'solve' global warming seems as sensible as the idea that Cnut could 'solve' the problem of the tide coming in. Now, later, whatever. We need to get used to the idea that our climate is not always going to be the same as it is today.

Okay, you are not despairing you are being a defeatist. My point with my examples from cell to civilization was that life is self-regulating and stabilizing. And with the evolution of life, systems of stability have evolved that have never existed before. A cell regulates its internal environment, as a multicelluar organism regulates its internal environment and a city regulates its internal environment. We are on the cusp of the next logical extension: the awesome power and responsibility of regulating the whole of the biosphere. To deny that responsibility seems foolhardy to me.

I'd rather try and act in an endeavour that has the potential of success. Preventing our climate from changing (however it does so) is clearly not going to happen, whether or not we are slowing it, speeding it up or whatever. Hence I am simply arguing it is a far more sensible and pragmatic question to ask how we should deal with the environment we will find ourselves in - rather than trying to fight natural forces we cannot control and try to force the environment to be to our liking.

Once you develop a causal link between our actions and climate changes, climate change becomes something we can control.

We do not have the understanding, let alone the technology, for such a feat.

I completely disagree. The technology and understanding are within our grasp.

We need to deal with the historical fact of climatic cycles. That is the reality today.

We have no evidence of climatic cycles ever moving at the rate they are presently moving without a dramatic precursor like an asteroid impact. In any case it goes without saying that we are going to have to cope with the current changes. Also you are right climate cycles have historically been beyond our control but if we are the cause of global warming I see no reason why climate needs to be beyond our control any longer.

Huh? This is not at all true -- the reason Venus' atmosphere is as it is is because of the lack of surface water. Venus lost its water inventory early on because the atmosphere was warm and moist, which allowed UV dissociation of the vapor, followed by hydrogen escape to space. Since there was no longer any liquid water, the carbon cycle was shut down, and all the CO2 hung around to exacerbate the process. There is no obvious a priori reason to believe that the same thing couldn't one day occur on Earth.

This is why I love this forum so much. People have such an interesting array of knowledge.

Why is Venus the way it is: Lack of a moon, or lack of surface water? I feel a new thread coming on.

 

[cgordon]

There's no 'solving' to it. It's a bigger problem than we can 'fix'. What we need to focus on is how WE will adapt and manage the changes.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't think this will be the last golden age for humanity and I doubt future generations will care our plight or legacy enough to hate us.

I agree that this is just another Golden Age on a sequence, but I think we're going to see some serious blame cast on us by the next few generations. Apart from anything else it will have rabble-rousing virtues, plus that sweet, sweet sense of self-righteousness. "They knew and did nothing!" - as if they'd have acted any differently. Blaming all of this century's problems on the excesses of the last would sound very attractive to me, were I a politician. I recall the Reagan-Thatcher years when all difficulties were blamed on the post-war "socialist" generations.

They will be too busy obsessing about the most important generation, one's own.

Indeed, but that doesn't preclude a sense of victimisation. Rather the opposite when one considers adolescents .

 

[Ziggurat]

Huh? This is not at all true -- the reason Venus' atmosphere is as it is is because of the lack of surface water. Venus lost its water inventory early on because the atmosphere was warm and moist, which allowed UV dissociation of the vapor, followed by hydrogen escape to space. Since there was no longer any liquid water, the carbon cycle was shut down, and all the CO2 hung around to exacerbate the process. There is no obvious a priori reason to believe that the same thing couldn't one day occur on Earth.

That's got relevance for the composition of the atmosphere, but it tells you nothing about why the atmosphere is so much thicker than earth's to begin with. And the thickness of the atmosphere has a whole lot to do with the massively hot temperatures, which in turn is why the atmosphere was so moist. If Venus had an earth-like moon, it would not have as thick an atmosphere.

 

[CapelDodger]

There's no 'solving' to it. It's a bigger problem than we can 'fix'. What we need to focus on is how WE will adapt and manage the changes.

"What do you mean "we", white man?" Tonto

There's no chance of a global strategy being implemented, since there's no existing political body to implement one. The best that human society has so far come up with is Kyoto. What the hey, human society has been trying to outlaw war for centuries and all it's achieved is the UN.

We will all adapt to circumstances, as they come to pass. Plans will be made and implemented at the relevant political level. Nothing serious will be done to address the root cause because that's not sustainable anyway. Why get tarred with the blame for something that's inevitable? Get liquid and stay poised for the Day After.

Once the coming turmoil is over the world will house many fewer people living in a very different way, with a whole new bunch of supremely documented history to learn from. Perhaps too well-documented. This post is potentially a document of this period. If I ever achieve my ambition of getting a team together and sacking the Vatican, I think I can guarantee that it will. If it stays at the level of encouraging other people to key SUV's, not so much.

 

[DanishDynamite]

"What do you mean "we", white man?" Tonto

There's no chance of a global strategy being implemented, since there's no existing political body to implement one. The best that human society has so far come up with is Kyoto. What the hey, human society has been trying to outlaw war for centuries and all it's achieved is the UN.

We will all adapt to circumstances, as they come to pass. Plans will be made and implemented at the relevant political level. Nothing serious will be done to address the root cause because that's not sustainable anyway. Why get tarred with the blame for something that's inevitable? Get liquid and stay poised for the Day After.

Once the coming turmoil is over the world will house many fewer people living in a very different way, with a whole new bunch of supremely documented history to learn from. Perhaps too well-documented. This post is potentially a document of this period. If I ever achieve my ambition of getting a team together and sacking the Vatican, I think I can guarantee that it will. If it stays at the level of encouraging other people to key SUV's, not so much.

Enough with the melodramatics. I have it on good authority that Branson et al. will have a space hotel waiting to accomodate those of his good friends who feel displaced. The shuttle ride will just be a hotel courtesy, obviously.

 

[CapelDodger]

We have no evidence of climatic cycles ever moving at the rate they are presently moving without a dramatic precursor like an asteroid impact. In any case it goes without saying that we are going to have to cope with the current changes. Also you are right climate cycles have historically been beyond our control but if we are the cause of global warming I see no reason why climate needs to be beyond our control any longer.

Quite right, and I can easily picture a future where maintaining a high stable CO2 level is a global aim. If that's the world we've adjusted to, and an equilibrium has been established, who would want to rock the boat? The turmoil of climate change will be a cultural memory, like visitations of steppe nomads or Serbs, and just as potent. The problem we currently have is that we're adjusted to a world where cheap energy is a given and the idea that we're too puny for our behaviour to have a global iimpact. Short of something crazy like nuclear war.

Why is Venus the way it is: Lack of a moon, or lack of surface water? I feel a new thread coming on.

I read a convincing treatment of the moon effect way back in the days when calculus was new and exciting to me. One of my dustier memory-demons is giving me Larry Niven, or Isaac Asimov ... somebody with an A in their name ... or J ...

Anyhoo, I'm convinced of the moon effect. It's all about escape velocity, but isn't it always.

 

[CapelDodger]

Enough with the melodramatics. I have it on good authority that Branson et al. will have a space hotel waiting to accomodate those of his good friends who feel displaced. The shuttle ride will just be a hotel courtesy, obviously.

Enough with the panoramics, it's the live-to-200 (OK, up to 200) market that will dominate. There are already serious sums to be made from freezing people's heads. Space hotels, whoopee, where's my jet-pack?! Cities under the sea, Mars colonies, I heard it all a long time ago. Every garage with a personal flying machine. Extrapolate from the 2D carnage we've adjusted to to the 3D carnage implied by that idea.

Longevity and designer babies. Those are my "buy" recommendations.

 

[Buckaroo]

That's got relevance for the composition of the atmosphere, but it tells you nothing about why the atmosphere is so much thicker than earth's to begin with. And the thickness of the atmosphere has a whole lot to do with the massively hot temperatures, which in turn is why the atmosphere was so moist. If Venus had an earth-like moon, it would not have as thick an atmosphere.

You're partly right, but you've got the events out of sequence. It wasn't thicker to begin with. It's pretty well accepted that Earth and Venus both had similar volatile inventories early in their histories, and therefore similar atmospheres. Before Venus's atmosphere went all wacky, it probably had a shallow ocean. The atmosphere didn't have to be massively hot to start the process of hydrogen escape. It was enough that it be in closer proximity to the sun, and thus warmer than, the Earth. But once the process started, it created a positive feedback that caused the water to go to vapor in the atmosphere, and eventually disappear as the hydrogen blew off in a planetary wind, helped along by the enhanced UV of the T-Tauri phase sun. In the meantime, the planet was getting warmer and warmer. Once the water was gone, the CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere instead of getting tied up in rocks, creating the enormous density we see today. If all the carbon in the Earth was converted to CO2 in our atmosphere, it would be just as dense.

Lack of a moon may have played a tiny role -- I can't really be sure, since I don't know where you read this, and there may be a new calculation I don't know about. Plus, it's been almost ten years since I last studied this subject seriously. But I can't imagine that it would be significant.

Wow, this has gotten wayyyy off topic. Sorry, guys.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Enough with the panoramics, it's the live-to-200 (OK, up to 200) market that will dominate. There are already serious sums to be made from freezing people's heads. Space hotels, whoopee, where's my jet-pack?! Cities under the sea, Mars colonies, I heard it all a long time ago. Every garage with a personal flying machine. Extrapolate from the 2D carnage we've adjusted to to the 3D carnage implied by that idea.

Longevity and designer babies. Those are my "buy" recommendations.

The difference is that back then these things were thought of as luxury items.

 

[ConspiRaider]

If I could invent one thing - it would be a CO2 scrubber fitted onto every automobile in America. Imagine if a car actually PULLED carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and 'fixed' it into something solid and collectible, and then safely disposable.

Anyone here who has not seen Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, needs to see it immediately. Put aside your politics, and watch the film.

Human beings have the ability to cause enormous change to the Earth's ecosystem. At this point - we are fouling our own nest. Are we supposed to sit back and say: "Well, we can't stop our destructive actions, so let's try and guess how we'll adjust to the radical changes we have wrought."

Not if we care about our survival.

To deny global warming is deliberate ignorance. To declare that nothing should be done to arrest it is feeble helplessness. And that is the mark of a species bound for extinction. Especially one that relies on its intelligence and social adaptiveness directly for survival.

 

[Megalodon]

Nice idea... not particularly original, but still good.

Check this out: http://www.bbm.me.uk/FeFert/expSummary.htm

Cheers

 

[Schneibster]

Apart from the serious scientists who don't*


*but don't allow that to change your opinion just because its claimed on the basis of popularity and not evidence.

Another Diamond drive-by.

Don't bother asking him anything; he hasn't got any facts, just some talking points from a couple GWD sites he likes the politics of. So he can't respond.

 

[Grimoire]

Well, I've decided to take things into my own hands. I've come up with a solution for global warming that I think is very easy to implement. I will be leaving my refrigerator open all night, every night. The extra cooling should be able to counteract global warming in a few months; a year at most. If everyone else on the JREF forum does the same, then we could have this thing fixed by the end of next week!

Next week, I'm going to solve world hunger. Stay tuned.