What global warming solutions can you think of?

[Nova Andromeda]

-It's 2027, the ice over Greenland has melted flooding vast regions of the planet. Global warming continues despite serious efforts to curb C02 emissions. Sadly those efforts were too little and far to late. Hundreds of millions have died and billions are threatened with death due to starvation, increased violence, economic collapse, etc. The world is now desperate to stop both polar ice caps from melting and other horrible environmental disasters by stopping global warming as fast as possible.
-So what solutions can you think of (disregard the impact of the solutions, although mention them, for the purposes of this thread). For instance, using the world's supply of nukes to load the upper atmosphere dust and thus cool the planet is a good suggestions (assumming it could work; I haven't thought about it much at all).

[NecronLord]

Go nuclear with all power worldwide and plant maximum numbers of the highest carbon-absorbtion plants you can find as fast as possible.

[salm]

I read about a plan in which algae take up CO2. These algae are then sunk to the bottom of the ocean. I can´t remember how they wanted to keep the CO2 from resurfacing, though.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

My first reaction is a massive culling of the Human race and moving the remaining ones into completely Green environments, but that isn't what I would choose.

Sulfur space cannons!

[The Third Man]

You'd want to raise the albedo of the planet, and thus directly prevent solar energy from causing the warming. Maybe putting mirrors everywhere, or tin-foil. Perhaps airbursting huge quantities of aluminium chaff or similar, or artificially encouraging cloud formation. Problem is of course, that the manufacture and distribution of the reflectors would doubtless be energy intensive and result in yet more CO2 production, so such a scheme could well be a net contributor to the warming, especially short-term.

More feasibly, you could release into the environment some sort of rapidly self-replicating, self-distributing device, powered entirely by energy absorbed from the sun, that can fix atmospheric carbon into a sequestered form, can optionally provide a carbon-neutral, non-fossil fuel and be up and running at high efficiency within a couple of decades. That would be a tree of course. Problem is, when your trees die, the process of decay releases all that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. Perhaps you could look at felling and than caching away the timber? The other problem with trees is that they lower the planetary albedo, and thus increase warming. As I understand it though, this depends on the latitude at which you plant your forest - forests at more northerly latitudes have a net warming effect, those in lower latitudes have a net cooling effect.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This assumes the effect can be reversed. Far as I see it, many scientists seem to think the world is beyond the point of no return and that any major catastrophes are already on track to happen, even if the world cuts down on CO2 and other emissions from midnight today.

Which, by the way, we won't.

[Darth Wong]

The best solution to human-initiated environmental changes is to reduce the number of humans. Sorry, but that's it.

[Rye]

Viral releases in the countries that are most densely populated and make for the worst polluters. Repeat as required.

[Eris]

While the worst polluters are the ones that are doing most of the damage, they're not going to suffer the worst of the effects. Feel bad for people living in places like Bangladesh. Their lives suck enough already and are only going to get worse.

But the Earth is a self-correcting system. We've done enough damage that we're facing a pretty massive disaster that'll likely pare much of the population. We'll hit sustainable levels eventually; the question just remains how much that is given how much we've exploited the Earth already. I think we have the solution to the Fermi paradox - any society that advances far enough to make identifiable noise on the interstellar level destroys its habitat in short order.

[Fire Fly]

Given the conditions stated by the OP, it is highly unlikely that global warming can be reversed without completely shutting down every single factory, car, and CO2 emitter. I'm reminded of a scene from The Last King of Scotland, where Idi Amin yells at Gerrigan for question Amin's decision to expel all the Asians only to later yell at Gerrigan for not being persuasive enough to prevent the expulsion.

[Nova Andromeda]

The best solution to human-initiated environmental changes is to reduce the number of humans. Sorry, but that's it.

-I'm not sure that will work since the U.S. produces 25% of the problem and has only 5% of the population. Wouldn't you also have to ensure the technological level was appropriate to prevent large scale changes by a small population?

[aerius]

The best solution to human-initiated environmental changes is to reduce the number of humans. Sorry, but that's it.

-I'm not sure that will work since the U.S. produces 25% of the problem and has only 5% of the population. Wouldn't you also have to ensure the technological level was appropriate to prevent large scale changes by a small population?

We look at the list of top greenhouse gas producing nations, take the worst 90% or whatever and depopulate them.

[K. A. Pital]

We look at the list of top greenhouse gas producing nations, take the worst 90% or whatever and depopulate them

Ouch. I know, I know, sarcastic and all that.

I would propose shifting to nuclear power and junking those hulks-o-cars. If reducing CO2 doesn't work, then we have to prepare for the consequences of climate change, rather than try to avert it. For example, think about possible required relocation for coastal cities.

[Mr Bean]

We blow up the ocean!
Aside from that... how about we just move? We can always watch the oh so hot Earth from orbiting colony's.

[darthbob88]

Anything except this. Synopsis: Kid produces bacteria which convert atmospheric CO2, along with a mix of seawater and sewage, into cellulose, of all kinds, and they are unkillable. The bacteria get loose and convert the oceans into wood pulp, which is then rotted into methane, a notorious greenhouse gas and very explosive. The end result is that this nitrogen-oxygen planet is likely to become a nitrogen-methane planet, and humanity is likely to be eliminated by the efforts of one man. [/shameless plug]

[Flagg]

What effect would detonating a few dozen thermonuclear weapons in Siberia or some other unpopulated area of the planet, thus kicking up enough shit into the atmosphere in order to block a portion of the suns energy from reaching the surface of the Earth have? And would the radiation levels be too much of a danger for this to work on some level?

[Superman]

Could Superman do it?

[Flagg]

Could Superman do it?

Which Superman? SuperJesus from the Singer movie, golden age Superman, or Mulletman?

[Superman]

Could Superman do it?

Which Superman? SuperJesus from the Singer movie, golden age Superman, or Mulletman?

Ok, first of all, MulletSuperman isn't going to do shit. Venom kicked his ass, for fuck's sake.

SuperJesus? Yeah, I think so. He lifted up a Kryptonite filled island and threw it into space.

[Patrick Degan]

What effect would detonating a few dozen thermonuclear weapons in Siberia or some other unpopulated area of the planet, thus kicking up enough shit into the atmosphere in order to block a portion of the suns energy from reaching the surface of the Earth have? And would the radiation levels be too much of a danger for this to work on some level?

You would have to have a Krakatoa-level event to make enough dust to affect at any appreciable measure the level of sunlight reaching the surface, and you'd probably have to have one such event annually for several years.

[darthbob88]

What effect would detonating a few dozen thermonuclear weapons in Siberia or some other unpopulated area of the planet, thus kicking up enough shit into the atmosphere in order to block a portion of the suns energy from reaching the surface of the Earth have? And would the radiation levels be too much of a danger for this to work on some level?

I'm pretty sure it would be mixed. On the one hand, kicking up so much dust would reflect a lot of heat back into the atmosphere and cut the warming significantly. On the other hand, have you any idea how much methane is sunk into the Siberian, Alaskan and Canadian permafrost?

[Sikon]

In this emergency scenario, the first step is to solve the problem in the short-term by cooling the planet, then take measures for the long-term.

Probably enough sulphates could be discharged into the atmosphere by aircraft, blimps, or cannons to cause a desired amount of negative radiative forcing, of cooling. However, I don't know how to determine how much was needed. If that wasn't practical, there could be another method:



The 1883 Krakatau volcanic eruption was 100 to 200 megatons, and it caused enough particulates in the upper atmosphere to cause on the order of one or two degrees drop in global temperature for up to several years afterwards. Sub-surface (not airburst) detonations of an appropriate number of multi-hundred-megaton thermonuclear bombs might analogously throw up enough into the upper atmosphere to cause temporary cooling of the planet by a desired number of degrees.

Some "clean" thermonuclear weapon designs for peaceful nuclear explosives (PNEs) were once developed with very little of their total yield from fission. One read about somewhere had only 0.3-kilotons (0.0003 megatons) fission yield but hundreds of kilotons fusion yield. A multi-stage design of hundreds of megatons yield could probably be well under 0.1% fission if designed for such as a priority. (One wonders if it could even be just a 0.3-kiloton starting fission trigger stage, then repeated fusion stages, so as to be as little as one part in a million fission yield despite being built with current technology, though such is uncertain).

The nuclear weapons production infrastructure of the U.S. or Russia could make some appropriate devices quickly, probably in under a year. Cost would be relatively little. Surround the bombs with a thick jacket of suitable material to prevent the carbon-14 radioisotope production that ordinarily results from the interaction of neutrons from the fusion yield with the atmosphere. Actually, on second thought, they would be detonated underground anyway, but the right surrounding material might reduce induced radioactivity, as fusion is "clean" in itself but still produces neutrons.

Historical atmospheric nuclear weapons tests amounted to 189 megatons of fission yield, plus more fusion yield. Although the public radiation exposure from such was substantial compared to other manmade sources of radiation exposure, the cumulative total over past decades was still less than the number of millions of man-Sv received each year from natural sources (UNSCEAR). With these thermonuclear devices being as clean as previously described, probably the effective radioisotope release would be orders of magnitude less than past nuclear testing.

Large areas of earth's surface have a population density under a person per square kilometer. Evacuate some such region hundreds of kilometers in diameter within an area like part of the Sahara, Australia, or elsewhere, making the few prior occupants rich with compensatory payments for relocation. Then detonate an appropriate megatonnage or gigatonnage of giant "clean" thermonukes, perhaps buried under the top of suitable mountains, keeping on detonating them until temperatures are low enough.

The particulates will settle out of the atmosphere within a few years, and one doesn't really want to have to keep repeating this every few years. But this buys initial time. There is a little temporary reduction in crop yields, due to slightly less sunlight, but measures are taken to export enough to countries in need. The whole plan seems controversial, but the opening post scenario implies it is an utter emergency situation with one somehow actually having the power to affect world policy.

Of course, the details would be determined after up to billions of dollars of modeling and study. For example, it might alternatively turn out that non-nuclear deposition of sulphates was cheap and practical enough. If done, the thermonuclear method would be performed with careful study, perhaps even modeling the effects of particular ground compositions, helped by experimental data after the first detonation. For example, the area chosen might not be Siberia if the quantity of underground methane and permafrost disturbed was determined to be a significant concern. Somewhere in Africa like the Sahara is among the likely possibilities, particularly since a given level of some billions of dollars compensation could make the countries partially affected far richer than they were before, increasing human welfare.



Now, go to the next measure, for the intermediate timeframe. Looking online, "a drop of as little as 0.01 in Earth’s albedo would have a major warming influence on climate—roughly equal to the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would cause Earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for every square meter of surface area" (NASA). So assume the next step is to do the equivalent of changing earth's albedo by reflecting an appropriate amount of sunlight before it reaches the planet, an amount assumed to be between one and several percent. To stop X% of sunlight corresponds to space solar reflector area of approximately X * 1.3E6 km^2.

A fraction of a micron thickness of aluminum foil would work, as implied by solar sail studies, but let's just treat the amount needed as equivalent to one-micron thickness, so each cubic meter or 2.65 metric tons of aluminum equates to a million square meters of foil, one square kilometer of foil. The mass of aluminum needed is then approximately 3.4 * X million metric tons. That may be relatively not too huge of an amount. For general perspective, terrestrial aluminum production is tens of millions of tons annually, hundreds of millions of tons a decade. Of course, the needed amount of aluminum needs to be made into thin foil, and it needs to be in space.

Assume a mass driver launching to approximately escape velocity with around 20% energy loss from atmospheric passage (plus several percent mass consumed by ablation of the shield for atmospheric passage, assuming ~ 1 metric ton telephone-pole shaped projectiles). Depending upon design assumptions, efficiency might be between 40% and 90%, but assume only 40%. Then, energy requirements for launch are approximately 196 GJ of input electricity per metric ton, ~ 54400 kilowatt-hours per metric ton. For the total of X * 3.4 million metric tons, such amounts to ~ 185 * X billion kilowatt-hours of electricity needed to power the mass driver launching it.

That actually isn't much. At the common industrial electricity cost of $0.06/kilowatt-hour in the U.S. today, the cost is $11 * X billion. It would be more efficient to make the millions of tons of aluminum foil in space after collecting material from a near earth asteroid, but setting up the infrastructure for that would take longer, so just assume 100% terrestrial launch. Other costs include between a fraction of a billion dollars and several billion dollars for the mass driver hardware like ultracapacitors, switches, coils, etc.

The production cost of the aluminum foil is unknown, though economy of scale might make it cost not too much. Its "raw materials" cost is better known, since that would be around $2.30 per kilogram, amounting to $7.8 * X billion for the 3.4 * X million metric tons, but that expense would be increased by conversion to foil.

Develop inexpensive rockets like the Sea Dragon. That would have a moderate development cost of $1 to $10 billion, then inexpensively launch a 500-ton payload to orbit each flight, for possibly as little as tens of dollars a kilogram eventually with economy of scale and reuse. At least it wouldn't be more than hundreds of dollars a kilogram at most. In that manner, thousands of tons of large modules are sent up into space, along with workers. With suitable equipment, workers spread the foil over a far more lightweight and flimsy structure than would be possible on earth, as there is no gravity, wind, or almost any other loading. It is spread like cheap garbage bags, which it much resembles in thinness.

Total cost of the preceding is unknown. Known costs as mentioned previously amount to probably tens of billions of dollars, but there are additional unknown costs, like development costs for machines spreading the foil quickly with few man-hours involved. A total expense of only hundreds of billions of dollars seems likely if done right, rather moderate even compared to annual military spending alone. Observe 0.1% of per-decade world GDP (PPP) is 0.001 of $650+ trillion or hence $650+ billion, and this would thus likely be less than 0.1% of world GDP in a decade.

The reflector location is assembly around the L1 Lagrange point that is between earth and the sun, making it always be between earth and the sun (not orbiting earth). Its position isn't precisely, perfectly "stable" so a very miniscule amount of thrust provided periodically by solar-powered ion engines keeps the reflector from drifting out of position, with an onboard fuel supply enough for many years and periodically replenished.

Particularly since the reflector is made a little like a grid, it is essentially invisible from earth, without anyone seeing any particular partial eclipse of the sun or shadow. But the effect is that there is a little less sunlight reaching earth. There is a very slight effect on crop yields, perhaps a 1% or more drop, but that is acceptable in this scenario; starvation and malnutrition on earth in modern times has always been from lack of food distribution to some regions rather than any shortage of total food worldwide. So now there is a giant adjustable "temperature control" for controlling earth's climate from space. Some reflector panels can be rotated to cause more or less sunlight to reach earth, however studies and continued environmental monitoring suggest is appropriate. The giant thermonuclear detonations or sulphate injection become no longer needed.

Meanwhile, there is now infrastructure to ship millions of tons of material into space, along with space assembly capability, many workers stationed in space, and more. Such can subsequently be used for more purposes.

In fact, given the solar constant of 1400 W/m^2, the reflector of X * 1.3E6 km^2 area is intercepting and redirecting an astronomical amount of solar energy, up to 1.8E15 watts, which is 1800 terawatts. For perspective, total electricity generation on earth is about 2 terawatts (CIA). So one of the first things done afterwards may be either modifying part of the reflector or using the existing infrastructure to build reflectors elsewhere concentrating sunlight for solar power satellites, beaming power to earth, i.e. concentrated microwave beams to terrestrial rectennas. This is expecting that such could be cheaper than the alternative of mass-producing terrestrial nuclear reactors for around $1000/kilowatt, $1 trillion per terawatt; the nuclear reactors could use uranium from seawater if necessary, which would provide practically unlimited fuel, particularly if combined with breeder reactors. Though nuclear waste is vastly overrated as a concern anyway, it could be shipped for space disposal with the mass driver.

Either way, with space solar power or with nuclear power, earth's current electricity production of 2 terawatts becomes 100% non-fossil-fuel instead, and it is expanded. Such is done making use of proportionally a rather small portion of the world's total GDP. After all, world GDP (PPP) is $65 trillion a year, $650+ trillion a decade (CIA World Factbook). Additional terawatts of electricity generation are added to synthesize fuels to help phase out fossil fuels everywhere, also synthesizing plastics, etc.

Measures are also taken against slash-and-burn farming, methane emissions, and more, until the world has few manmade emissions of greenhouse gases. Once new human emissions were eliminated, the current elevated CO2 levels would naturally drop to some degree. There is absorption into the oceans, and plant biomass tends to increase over time from the fertilizing effect of elevated CO2. However, such is a slow process.

To speed it up, possibilities include iron fertilization of the oceans, delivering synthetic fertilizer to forests, planting new forests, and/or other measures. One possibility is carbon sequesterization in the form of using some of the terawatts of power to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. To convert it back to carbon and oxygen would require so many terawatts as to be relatively unaffordable, but there is a much less energy intensive alternative. What could work would be instead letting the CO2 collected remain as CO2, injecting it into the ocean depths, depleted oil fields underground, or other suitable locations for sequesterization.

Of course, an alternative or supplemental measure is using biomass for sequesterization. Grow huge quantities of plant biomass with synthetic fertilizer easily produced with the cheap, clean energy. Then bury that new plant biomass underground (or process it into construction materials, etc.), so its carbon content gets kept out of the atmosphere for at least decades to centuries, rather than just decomposing and going back into circulation. Then, grow new biomass in the now free land areas that the old plants or trees previously occupied. Such partially reproduces the natural process that created fossil fuels in the first place, keeping their carbon content underground, locked out of circulation.

As can be seen, the preceding plan corresponds to three stages. The first stage is a technique like sulphate dispersion or the thermonuclear bombs. It is accomplished within a year. That is the short-term solution to the planetary temperature emergency. The next solution for an intermediate timeframe is the space reflector. It is accomplished within a decade if given an appropriate level of funding and done right, on an accelerated schedule a little like how some industrial development proceeded in WWII. The long-term solution is the elimination of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize CO2 levels, possibly with measures to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels afterwards. The process takes decades, but it is accomplished in the end. And meanwhile the space infrastructure starts also being used for other purposes, like space exploration and space colonization...

[Sikon]

I just noticed a minor mistake, in this part of my post:

In fact, given the solar constant of 1400 W/m^2, the reflector of X * 1.3E6 km^2 area is intercepting and redirecting an astronomical amount of solar energy, up to 1.8E15 watts, which is 1800 terawatts.

That should be instead:

In fact, given the solar constant of 1400 W/m^2, the reflector of X * 1.3E6 km^2 area is intercepting and redirecting an astronomical amount of solar energy, up to X * 1.8E15 watts, which is 1800 * X terawatts.

After all, the amount of sunlight being stopped would be X%. And X% could be 1%, corresponding to 1800 terawatts, but it also could be another figure instead, as the exact value of X needed would have to be calculated to be known.

[K. A. Pital]

So. We can run a 200 megaton nuclear test on Novaya Zemlya or in the Polar Circle Siberia each year, and all will pay to mother Russia to protect them with our UBER-NUKES.

I like this variant. Especially the shitloads of money we'll be getting from the others!! Yess! Although we will be colding ourselves... which given the fact that Russia is already very cold, not a good thing, economically...

Hmm... I think the compensations have to be very large, yes.

[darthbob88]

Hmm... I think the compensations have to be very large, yes.

This'd be, what, Pax Russiana? Russkie? Whatever you call it, I, for one, welcome our new Russian overlords.