"Plan B": techno-fixing climate change
Is there a big earth-sized techno-fix for climate change? Some people think so, and that the time has come to consider such actions (eg, pumping sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere):
Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B'
What do babblers think?
Comments
It appears as though 2008 was warmer than every year of the 20th century except 1998, so there is no possible way that the "average mean temperature 90 years ago" was the equivalent of 2008. Not even close. ``
According to the NOAA average US mean temperature in 2008 was 53 degrees farenheight and that is exactly what the mean temperature was in in 1910. 53 degrees was 2 degrees cooler than the average temp in 1998, but why let the facts get in the way of a poorly researched rant
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/07/us-temperatures-2008-back-to-the-future/
The IPCC doesn't conduct research. It assesses peer reviewed and published scientific literature. Many scientists have spent a good deal of time researching solar cycles they have on the whole come to a very different conclusion through looking at science and evidence than you have through looking at conspiracy stories.
The IPCC assesses research they deem relevant to Global Warming theory they have bought into vogue and ignore or down-play the rest. Do you mean to tell me all the scientific literature points to CO2 as the main catalyst for global warming between 1975 and 1998? Their vaunted computer models only work when the solar radiation is kept at a constant, because wildly fluctuating solar radiance simply overpowers the limited influence of CO2. CO2 is a TRACE gas, it’s only .035% of the earth’s atmoshere, Nitrogen and water vapour make up virtually all of it. The earth’s overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour and we cant control, or tax that, can we.
The IPCC is a political organization with a POLITICAL agenda, to ignore that is willfull blindness. IPCC science is peer-reviewed by other like-minded scientists that are being paid to do so, and the report conclusions and policy recomendations are written by Political aparatchiks. Those scientists that rock the boat tend to lose their research grants. The IPCCs mandate is to dig up as much scientic support as possible for justifying the implementation of the Kyoto treaty pure and simple.
A third grade science teacher could easily tear apart AGW theory, the science is crude, fraught with errors and completely unreliable because the earth’s MAIN climate drivers , solar radiance and water vapour, are completely out of our control and difficult, if not impossible to predict.
Where is your link showing that the head of IPCC says that the world is cooling? Or all you going to retract your statment?
According to the NOAA average US mean temperature in 2008 was 53 degrees farenheight and that is exactly what the mean temperature was in in 1910. 53 degrees was 2 degrees cooler than the average temp in 1998, but why let the facts get in the way of a poorly researched rant
The US might be the whole world in your mind, but scientists theorise that there are other countries, maybe lots of countries in the world, as well as oceans and possibly a whole uninhabited continent at the southern pole. And where is your link showing that the head of IPCC says that the world is cooling? Or all you going to retract your statement?
The IPCC assesses research they deem relevant to Global Warming theory they have bought into vogue and ignore or down-play the rest.
Any evidence for your conspiracy theory? And where is your link showing that the head of IPCC says that the world is cooling? Or all you going to retract your statement?
Do you mean to tell me all the scientific literature points to CO2 as the main catalyst for global warming between 1975 and 1998? Their vaunted computer models only work when the solar radiation is kept at a constant,
Lie.
because wildly fluctuating solar radiance simply overpowers the limited influence of CO2.
Irrelevent as solar radiance has not been "wildly fluctating."
CO2 is a TRACE gas, it’s only .035% of the earth’s atmoshere, Nitrogen and water vapour make up virtually all of it. The earth’s overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour and we cant control, or tax that, can we.
Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. CO2 might be only 0.035% of the earth's atmosphere but it contributes 9 - 26% of the greenhouse effect. The wide range is not due to scientific uncertainty of the true value, but the range of effect depending on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere which varies. It is well understood that water vapour contributes the most to the greenhous effect. However, water is a feedback factor, not a forcing factor. Meaning that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere increases heat trapping which increases the earth's temperature, which increases the water vapour in the atmosphere. A pretty simple concept, which you have ignored before, so I fully expect you to ignore it again. And where is your link showing that the head of IPCC says that the world is cooling? Or all you going to retract your statement?
The IPCC is a political organization with a POLITICAL agenda, to ignore that is willfull blindness. IPCC science is peer-reviewed by other like-minded scientists that are being paid to do so, and the report conclusions and policy recomendations are written by Political aparatchiks. Those scientists that rock the boat tend to lose their research grants. The IPCCs mandate is to dig up as much scientic support as possible for justifying the implementation of the Kyoto treaty pure and simple.
Yawn. I am aware of the conspiracy theory. However, I am not aware of a single shred of evidence to support the position of the conspiracy theorists.
A third grade science teacher could easily tear apart AGW theory, the science is crude, fraught with errors and completely unreliable because the earth’s MAIN climate drivers , solar radiance and water vapour, are completely out of our control and difficult, if not impossible to predict.
Yawn. Seriously if a third grade science teacher could even make a slight dent in the AGW theory then Shell and Exxon would be spending millions to get that evidence to the public. Or are you now saying that the oil companies are part of the conspiracy too.
It depends on the details.
Generally, the "solution to the problems created by American-style technological culture is - more technology !" fails to recognize certain in-escapable basics. Such as the amount of Pollution created by American-style technological culture.
I would say that our quality of life, in general, was higher in the '60's - except for exceptions related to culture (civil rights) and technology (e.g. the Rodney King video, as an example of the usefulness of technology in certain instances.) Vinyl records were just as good as iPods; having to go for a walk without being able to take music along doesn't qualify as a huge sacrifice.
What good is creating new techno-fixes, when we aren't recognizing the extent of damages created by our "cool technologies" ?
Still, some of the techno-fixes will help deal with climate change.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://LASIK-Flap.com ~ Health Warning about LASIK Eye Surgery
I see it this way: Imagine your in a gingerbread boat and you keep eating the gingerbread. The boat is taking on water and you know you will eventually drown. So you bail water in panic, laying duct tape in the hope it will slow the water, and demand answers from anyone within earshot as to "what can we do!" Meanwhile, you refuse to consider the one non-technological and sure-fired way to end the degradation of your gingerbread boat -- stop eating it!
Hard if you have nothing else to eat. In this case we do though. However we as a species may find ourselves in a situation where some-one may have to attempt a geo-engineering solution, even if that solution could be worse than the problem. Still have to deal with ocean acidification though.
But the thing is there has been plenty to eat. The planet has given us an abundance of resources to sustain us for an eternity. But we have squandered them at an industrial rate. Not consumed them - squandered them - at an industrial rate. And so we find ourselves, not in a world free of want and need where the full potential of every human being can be explored and sought, but, rather. in a world where we postulate "geo-engineering solutions" to help us balance our waste against our survival. How pathetic is that?
I don't disagree. I said that the gingerbread wasn't all we had to eat. But if we don't stop squandering resources soon, a geo-engineering solution may be the only thing that saves us and most other species from extinction. That certainly will be pathetic.
I think this quote pretty much sums up how I feel about it.
To take the medical analogy further, we may be at the point where some life saving interventions are needed to keep the patient alive but if we're not working healing or fixing the things that got the patient to the point that they needed to be put on the respirator, then it's quite a useless endevor. Geo-engineering is a bandaid or pill to manage pain, not a solution for curing the overall disease.
Why, have the deniers stopped getting in the way? HA Ha, just kidding... but seriously -
No, I would not put much resources into techno-fixes. The real problem and solution involve our use of fossil fuels, and we just have to replace them with renewables to clean up the world. It will take 20 years to switch over. Also, the change to the economy will be very good for almost all of us when - or IF - we get away from fossil fuels and move to the renewable energy economy.
Renewable energy is actually CHEAPER than fossil fuels, it just has a higher up front cost, but over 5 years it pays off, and in 10 years, WOW, we are way ahead. Oilmen are powerfull, and their eyes are on the $150 Trillion worth of oil and gas in the ground.
Renewable Energy - "PAY FOR IT ONCE, AND THEN ITS FREE."
And while the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, the state of mind of the participants can go far in controlling population growth in the nation.
There must be some potential there for a play on "energy" but it's not coming.
And, anyway, maybe that would be part of Plan "C"ondom, not "B".
Geez, sometimes it has to be spelled out!
Seems to me that there is a very real likelyhood that we might have to consider man made solutions towards climate change.
Shutting down the fossil fuel energy and reducing soil erosion is not going to remove the CO2 that we have already put into the biospere.
If I remember correctly that is about 300 billion tons of carbon that we extracted and released into the biospere. Untill that has been removed from the biospere the climate will change. I am not sure if the sea will be able to cleanout that amount of carbon and deposite it as a carbonate quick enough to avoid climate change.
I am not all that happy with the possible solutions offered in the article. Littering our Oceans and skies with chemicals seems rather risky. So does pumping CO2 underground or under water. For one a CO2 molecule is about three times heavier then a straight carbon molecule so instead of having to remove 300 billion tons of carbon we now have to remove about 900 billion tons of CO2 to get the same effect.
I like to see us put carbon, in the form of humus (plant and animal remains) deeper in the soil, where it hopefully will remain for a long time. Mind you, as a farmer, I have an interest in that aproach.
Seems to me that there is a very real likelyhood that we might have to consider man made solutions towards climate change.
Shutting down the fossil fuel energy and reducing soil erosion is not going to remove the CO2 that we have already put into the biospere.
------------------------------
I am not all that happy with the possible solutions offered in the article. Littering our Oceans and skies with chemicals seems rather risky. So does pumping CO2 underground or under water. For one a CO2 molecule is about three times heavier then a straight carbon molecule so instead of having to remove 300 billion tons of carbon we now have to remove about 900 billion tons of CO2 to get the same effect.
Yes unfortunately I think we may be getting to that point and personally I just hate it. I'm wary about the risk as well as sometimes the medicine or cure ends up making the disease worse if it's not thought through properly or unforseen interactions can cause more problems. I'm not totally against the idea of the techno fixes when things get desperate. My concern is if the focus is only on the techno fixes which can lead to people thinking 'oh good, the Star Trek Enterprise crew has swooped in and saved us...we don't have to change anything' or worse depending on the techno geeks to save the day without being forced to deal with the root causes in any real manner. I come across that sort of attitude a lot, "I'm not worried, some scientist somewhere will figure it out, we're smart' and just go on living as if nothing is a problem and that they're not connected with the problems in any real way.
I thought of another analogy using a small but real event that explains my thinking.
There was an oil spill in the creek behind my parents house. It just appeared one day. It could have been quite devastating to a large part of the water system as the creek led to a river which led to lake Huron. The techno fix was the cleanup technology. The cleanup crew parked on a bridge downstream and used sponges and other technologies to remove the oil before it went downstream anymore. Very necessary and great that it exists. They had to find the source though or else they'd just have to sit there and "clean up". The source was an old oil tank left on a piece of land that had rusted out and the oil had leaked through a couple of acres of field through the weeping tile into the creek. That was then cleaned up. Still doesn't get to the root of the problem though. Why was the tank there in the first place and why did no one notice that it might be a potential problem? Well that piece of land was an old farmstead pad that had been bought up by a large agri-corporation many years ago and rented out for use to various other people over the years the lastest being a staging grounds for the wind turbine construction that has gone on in the area. They weren't the ones though that left the tank. I'm not sure if they ever figured out who actually left the tank but from what little I did hear what ensued was some debate about who was ultimately responsible as the clean-up costs were substantial.
In my opinion the root of the problem came from failure to monitor and failure of the land owner to keep tabs on what was going on on that piece of land. Take that further and it's connected to policies around land use, the intersection between government and business regs and practices and the ethos around corporate agriculture in general. Without looking at it at that level it's possible that a similar situation can happen again or keep happening over and over.
In this case we very much needed the techno fix but we also need to get to the source of the problem so that cleanup crew doesn't have to stay parked on that bridge til the cows come home.
I have the perfect techno solution for Global Warming:
Nuclear winter.
Hear me out. We need to cool the atmosphere, so we need to introduce a lot of material up there to block out the Sun's rays. A massive nuclear exchange could do the trick. Thermonuclear detonations are the Green solution, since it would greatly reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned. Instead of being a contributor to the problem, cars and drivers would become the solution, as their vapourized remains would be thrown into the upper atmosphere as a giant sun block. It would also stimulate the economy, provided good jobs in security, contamination removal, scavenging, hovel building, and refugee wrangling. It would also stimulate organic farming, as waves of survivors migrate into the countryside in a desperate seach for food. Kinda like a weekend picking berries, but more savage.
Personally, I don't see any downside to this at all.
Like other posters in this thread, I'm not keen on the idea either, but I agree that it may be necessary. Here's what Gwynne Dyer has to say on the subject:
I like the second approach for another reason; sulphate aerosols are going to cause acid rain, which will not be good, since it could dwarf the effect of CO2 on the pH of the oceans (carbonic acid is a weak acid, whereas sulphuric acid is a very strong one).
Finally a voice of reason. I'm certain and strong leader like Iggy or Stevie will be all over this.
The only advantage to the geo-engineering line of thought is it opens up the question of 'What do we want our atmosphere to look like?'. Outside of that it gets destructive quickly.
Great anologies in the thread... Life support is the best method of stating it really. Sulphur aerosols stays in the atmosphere in the range of 1-2 years before coming back down. CO2 will stay there for closer to 100 years. We'd have to tend to our planets life support very frequently and at an increasing rate as our CO2 emmissions continue to rise.
Ultimately, thse solutions are answers to the question "How do we continue going about our existance exactly as we have". If thats the question we're trying to answer, I'd support a pull the plug on the planet approach... Let the current system die and let our 'industrial rate squandering' die. This collapse seems to be the only event that might make us ask a different question.
How about burn down all the forests? The particulate from that should cool us down for 2 years ;)
A fine collection of modest proposals.
One kind of techno fix not discussed here is simply removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Like this
Interesting link... Iseee now.
Right idea there.
I've heard this rumour (and I mean rumour... Friend of a friend who's sister said something type rumour) that theres a new battery design going through the patenting process in the States that would be the next gen of battery design. Heh, it was techie rumour... So it was presented as `powering a laptop for over 20 days`. Battery design hasn`t changed much, and much of what has is just perfecting the current design. Sort of what [URL=http://2technology.blogspot.com/2007/09/ibms-nano-breakthrough-single-atom-data.html]this[/URL] might do for data storage (like what flash drives have done). Though it seems like rumour for now.
I'm just curious but when did the term 'climate change' replace 'global warming'?
I'm just curious but when did the term 'climate change' replace 'global warming'?
I'm just curious but when did the term 'climate change' replace 'global warming'?
In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded to evaluate the risk of global warming. It was never called the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming. So the idea that the term "climate change" replaced the term "global warming" is a rightwing myth and part of their "big science" conspiracy theory. It was perpetrated in part by former George W. Bush communications consultant who felt the best way to confuse the public was for the administration to both use the less scary sounding term "climate change" but to also convince the public that previously the scientific community had used the term global warming and have now changed to the term climate change as it makes the scientific community sound uncertain about the science. The reality is that both terms have been largely used interchangeably since the 80's (although the terms are not exactly identical, generally it is considered that the all changes in climate throughout the earth's history are termed climate change, whereas the current example of climate change is caused by anthropogenic global warming. If there is any increase in the usage of climate change over global warming within the scientific community there is a decent chance that such an increase in the term "climate change" is due to the large increase in research into past periods of climate change to better under the potential effects of the current example of climate change which is caused by anthropogenic global warming.)
Thanks Trevor.
I'm just curious but when did the term 'climate change' replace 'global warming'?
In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded to evaluate the risk of global warming. It was never called the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming. So the idea that the term "climate change" replaced the term "global warming" is a rightwing myth and part of their "big science" conspiracy theory. It was perpetrated in part by former George W. Bush communications consultant who felt the best way to confuse the public was for the administration to both use the less scary sounding term "climate change" but to also convince the public that previously the scientific community had used the term global warming and have now changed to the term climate change as it makes the scientific community sound uncertain about the science. The reality is that both terms have been largely used interchangeably since the 80's (although the terms are not exactly identical, generally it is considered that the all changes in climate throughout the earth's history are termed climate change, whereas the current example of climate change is caused by anthropogenic global warming. If there is any increase in the usage of climate change over global warming within the scientific community there is a decent chance that such an increase in the term "climate change" is due to the large increase in research into past periods of climate change to better under the potential effects of the current example of climate change which is caused by anthropogenic global warming.)
Looking at past episodes of climate change and how abrupt and devastating it can be, it is debatable which is a more benign term. Natural global warming is essential for life on earth; anthropogenically enhanced global heating may turn a major extinction event into a great extinction.
I like Jingles suggestion. But barring that, how about if we just stopped? Or is it too late for that already?
Based on my reading on this subject, I see one of two possible scenarios:
1. We cut GHG emissions to almost zero within the next couple of decades.
2. We don't and life on Earth is dealt a very severe blow.
There is another downside that goes along with option 2: increased resource scarcity means increased violence, which means we are very likely to see global warming as one of the key factors in the first (only?) nuclear war.
Those are the options, period. Arguments about a "techno fix" are some combination of delaying tactics, obfuscation, and defeatism. There will be no techno fix. I find it absolutely astounding that people seriously suggest that we fix the problem of massive over-usage of industrial technology with even more massive industrial technology. And what will we do when the new technology creates new problems? I'm reminded of Chuck Pahlaniuk's "fix to a fix to a fix to a problem I can't even remember".
The Bish, I am not sure that cutting our GHG emissions to zero is going to stop climate change. We have to start removing that CO2 we released from our fossil fuel use and our deforestation out of our biosphere.
More carbon dioxide needs to be absorbed than emitted by 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.
The link to the article is below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7826994.stm
How do you propose to do that?
The sinks will have to cooperate and be protected. Re- and Afforestation and maybe agrichar on a huge scale will increase absorption. But if the longer we wait to reduce emissions the less likely that 2 degrees can be avoided as the sinks may turn into sources as we wait.
From the article Bubbles linked:
More CO2 will have to be absorbed than emitted in the second half of this century.
I think if my suggestion that we stop emitions now was followed we'd be fine without absorbtion strategies. If Bish's "next couple of decades" target for stopping our emissions was followed I'm not sure we'd be okay without techno-fixes for absorbing CO2.
My suggestion is preposterous of course
people will be far more supportive of doing nothing for another few decades and then scrambling madly for techno-fixes as the world ends.
Awfully sad because as Bish said we have two options (I've reformated them slightly): 1) stop now, voluntarily, and survive; 2) stop later, involuntarily (when the earth becomes uninhabitable), and be wiped out.
Maybe we need a definition of what a techno-fix is. Would a reforestation program using man made equipment be a techno-fix? Would switching to solar panels to replace fossil fuel be a techno-fix? Would using birth control to control our numbers be a techno-fix?
Seems to me that we are employing techno-fixes to reduce our CO2 output already. If we want this discussion to go anywhere we have to be more specific about what techno-fixes we are discussing.
The Bish, I am not sure that cutting our GHG emissions to zero is going to stop climate change. We have to start removing that CO2 we released from our fossil fuel use and our deforestation out of our biosphere.
More carbon dioxide needs to be absorbed than emitted by 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.
The link to the article is below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7826994.stm
How do you propose to do that?
Well, I guess I should be more specific about a couple of things. There is already zero chance that we can literally stop global warming. The GHG that have already been emitted are going to cause temperatures to continue to rise somewhat. Typically the goal is to keep warming under 2 degrees celsius. The article you've linked explicitly rejects that goal, which is why they're arguing that carbon dioxide also has to be removed. In order to meet the 2 degree goal, which is what I was using, we need to begin drastically cutting emissions immediately and all but eliminate them by about 2030. I've seen a number of scenarios from perfectly respectable people who claim that 2050 should be the goal, but based on the reading that I've done that seems to be too late.
If our goal is something smaller than 2 degrees, then yes, it is entirely possible that we've already gone too far. And there are other problems. For example, there is already growing evidence that the permafrost may begin to melt within the next 10-15 years, which on its own could completely derail even the most thorough of reduction strategies.
I'm just curious but when did the term 'climate change' replace 'global warming'?
Whether it's called "climate change" or "global warming", the consensus is that global temperatures are warming (on the theory that increases in CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere are creating a "greenhouse" effect). So, it makes no difference whether the label used is "climate change" or "global warming" (an increase in temperature is a "change", after all).
The only time the term "climate change" could be used nefariously is if the consensus is wrong and global temperatures start cooling (in contrast to all of the models that all but prove that temperatures must rise in response to human activity) AND scientists blame the global cooling on anthropogenic causes, something along the lines of: "Yeah, all of our models (all but) proved that human behavior was causing recent global temperature increases. But, now we can (all but) prove that the human behavior is actually causing global temperature decreases." Then, "climate change" would look more like a political matter than a scientific matter.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I find climate change is a more accurate term than global warming... Global Warming (and the people that use the term) tend to focus only on warming air temperatures, which is only a minor part of the overall picture (that and the air temps have dropped in certain regions, which gives the denial crowd plenty of ammunition). Climate change includes energy as well as temperature, like the energy asorbed by the melting of arctic ice is more than what would be required to warm the entire atmosphere by a few degrees.
The Bish:
Agreed... I quite dislike the general 'Stop global warming' stance as if this change is something that could be stopped, resistance to change will result in existiction.
Survival of the fittest is incorrect... It's survival to the most capable of adapting to change. It seems fitting that any discussion to halt or even reverse these effects should include surviving the changes we've already incurred.
It's Me D :
One of the problems we are facing is the lifespan of CO2 in our atmosphere... Anything emitted today will likely remain as CO2 for over 100 years before being refined back into the system. Stopping 100% now still leaves the current CO2 in the system creating these changes, and as several positive feedback mechanisms have been found... It might not be enough to prevent large scale catastrophic events from happening.
Albedo manipulation as a techno- fix?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7831939.stm
The reason why "climate change" is mentioned more often than "Global Warming" these days is because average mean temperatures entered a declining trend since the peak of 1998. The `warming`trend loses its lustre when people feel that temperatures are getting COLDER around them! 2008 temperatures were about equivalent with average mean temperature 90 years ago. To coin a term from the once popular Wendy's commercial "where's the beef"?
Even the head of the IPCC acknowledged this cooling trend, that "natural forces" are overwhelming man-made warming and could do so for the next 10 years. Oh REALLY! Could it be these natural forces have been the main climate drivers and not man-made CO2? I guess the scientists at the IPCC better develop better computer models because they predicted the opposite of whats happening outside your window right now.
I have always been perplexed why so little of the IPCC research deals with solar cycles, which is thè earths primary climate driver, but it just dawned on me, we can`t tax the sun, lest control it. CO2 isn`t even the earths primary greenhouse gas, 95% of that belongs to water vapour fòr goodness sake.
Mark my words, the Global Warming Hysteria will end up in the ash-bins of history, not unlike the Ìce -age threat that was the front page of Time magazine in 1975.
If we want to discuss environmental JUSTICE, why not discuss real environmental problems, not imagined.
How about doing some justice to reasoned debate, and turn your CAPS LOCK OFF!
The reason why "climate change" is mentioned more often than "Global Warming" these days is because average mean temperatures entered a declining trend since the peak of 1998. The `warming`trend loses its lustre when people feel that temperatures are getting COLDER around them! 2008 temperatures were about equivalent with average mean temperature 90 years ago. To coin a term from the once popular Wendy's commercial "where's the beef"?
It appears as though 2008 was warmer than every year of the 20th century except 1998, so there is no possible way that the "average mean temperature 90 years ago" was the equivalent of 2008. Not even close.
Link.
The IPCC doesn't conduct research. It assesses peer reviewed and published scientific literature. Many scientists have spent a good deal of time researching solar cycles they have on the whole come to a very different conclusion through looking at science and evidence than you have through looking at conspiracy stories.
I am not going to bother responding to the rest of your ridiculous assertions as they have been dealt with each time you reappear every couple weeks.