What global warming solutions can you think of?

[K. A. Pital]

Pax Sovietica. Or Pax Rodina.

We blow up Tsar Bombs for you, but yo have to pay up

[Big Phil]

Aren't most scientists talking about global warming raising the temperature by a degree or two (at the most) by 2030? If the temperate increases by a couple-three degrees over the next two decades, how is that going to cause massive death and carnage? The Krakatoa eruption didn't leave to worldwide famines, after all, despite reducing temperatures by several degrees.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html

[Patrick Degan]

Pax Sovietica. Or Pax Rodina.

We blow up Tsar Bombs for you, but yo have to pay up

Guess you guys will have to dust-off those plans for the Doomsday Machine. Hint: leave out the Cobalt Thorium-G jacketing in the production models. OK...?

[K. A. Pital]

No problem (relays the advice to a few real friends at Snezhinsk)

Oh, we still can blow shit up good.

[fgalkin]

Pax Sovietica. Or Pax Rodina.

We blow up Tsar Bombs for you, but yo have to pay up

If you don't pay up, we'll still blow them Tsar Bombas up, but over your house.

I like this scenario, a lot.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

Aren't most scientists talking about global warming raising the temperature by a degree or two (at the most) by 2030? If the temperate increases by a couple-three degrees over the next two decades, how is that going to cause massive death and carnage? The Krakatoa eruption didn't leave to worldwide famines, after all, despite reducing temperatures by several degrees.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html

The Krakatoa eruption was a transient event. Steady changes are more dangerous because you can't just wait them out.

[K. A. Pital]

If you don't pay up, we'll still blow them Tsar Bombas up, but over your house.

A good payment motivator!! Imagine how the people will get really concerned with global climate change after we explode a few!

[Big Phil]

Aren't most scientists talking about global warming raising the temperature by a degree or two (at the most) by 2030? If the temperate increases by a couple-three degrees over the next two decades, how is that going to cause massive death and carnage? The Krakatoa eruption didn't leave to worldwide famines, after all, despite reducing temperatures by several degrees.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html

The Krakatoa eruption was a transient event. Steady changes are more dangerous because you can't just wait them out.

Agreed, but even the worst-case scenarios - talking about increases of up to three degrees celsius by 2030 - don't suggest massive death and destruction. If we're talking 2100, with increases up to 10 degrees celsius, then the predictions of massive death and destruction make some sense.

[K. A. Pital]

Death can be mitigated, it's a long-term event (warming), but destruction? Entire landmass is consumed by the sea and coastal city population, hundreds of millions will have to be replaced. That's lots of destruction, not to mention the desturction of coastal agricultural areas and other populated territories close to the coast experiencing wild climate change.

This is pretty bad, even if it happens over a long time.

[CJvR]

Kill off methane producing animals.

[Beowulf]

Solution: Global Thermonuclear War.

[Enforcer Talen]

Futurama: "Ha! Global warming never happened!" "It did, but the nuclear winter solved it"

[darthbob88]

Kill off methane producing animals.

The major methane source, from animals, is cow burps, IIRC. Steaks and burgers for everyone!

[Eris]

Agreed, but even the worst-case scenarios - talking about increases of up to three degrees celsius by 2030 - don't suggest massive death and destruction. If we're talking 2100, with increases up to 10 degrees celsius, then the predictions of massive death and destruction make some sense.

One of the problems as I understand it is that while average temperatures are going to change only a few degrees those averages are skewed so that some regions will see temperature increases over well over ten degrees K or so. Conversely, some regions may actually see a decrease in temperature - although all these locations are in the long run over the oceans. One British study got these results if you're curious. Also, even a modest climate change could melt a lot of the ice around, making large problems for those in Japan, Bangladesh, the Phillipines, Holland, and every large coastal city on the planet, amongst other places.

[Big Phil]

One of the problems as I understand it is that while average temperatures are going to change only a few degrees those averages are skewed so that some regions will see temperature increases over well over ten degrees K or so. Conversely, some regions may actually see a decrease in temperature - although all these locations are in the long run over the oceans. One British study got these results if you're curious. Also, even a modest climate change could melt a lot of the ice around, making large problems for those in Japan, Bangladesh, the Phillipines, Holland, and every large coastal city on the planet, amongst other places.

I've read those studies too - that's why I really don't like the term "global warming" when in fact we're talking about "climate change." If it gets colder in some places and warmer in others, it's not like we're looking at a global farming catastrophe. We are looking at coastal flooding, unpredictable weather, stronger and deadlier storms, etc., but none of those things will result in billions of deaths or require a massive purge of industrialized nations, as is being suggested in this thread.

Personally, I'm less concerned with climate change than I am with the predicted near extinction of many ocean species, or the elimination of sensitive ecosystems (like rain forests and jungles) in the name of progress. All of these things are linked to humanity's unwillingness to think ahead. In other words, it's a bigger problem than "explode a few nukes and throw up dust to cool the planet," and "let's kill off 90% of humans" isn't realistic. Anybody here willing to off themselves to save the Earth? The solution to climate change is greener alternatives - solar power, cleaner burning fossil fuels, recycling, etc.

I would compare nukes in the atmosphere or killing people off to liposuction or stomach stapling for people trying to lose weight. They are quick and easy solutions, but they ignore the real problem, which is human behavior. Changing behavior is not easy, but that's what's required.

[K. A. Pital]

I would compare nukes in the atmosphere

A solution clean and cheap enough. Human nuclear tests, especially the very high-yield termonuclear devices which are the cleanest possible nuclear explosions, too, have not significantly affected background radiation IIRC.

Manipulating climate should be a task that humanity would take on, sooner or later. Being forced to climatic debacles at the weather's mercy is not something humanity should be sentenced to.

[Eris]

I've read those studies too - that's why I really don't like the term "global warming" when in fact we're talking about "climate change."

Well, I personally don't mind the words 'global warming' since overall things are getting warmer. But it's a semantic issue at its heart, and not a very important one. So long as we can discuss the causes and consequences in a coherent manner you could call it the Great Flibnarb for all I care.

If it gets colder in some places and warmer in others, it's not like we're looking at a global farming catastrophe. We are looking at coastal flooding, unpredictable weather, stronger and deadlier storms, etc., but none of those things will result in billions of deaths or require a massive purge of industrialized nations, as is being suggested in this thread.

Actually we are looking at a global farming catastrophe, but not entirely because of global warming. One problem is that all of our current farmland may not remain fertile due to climate shifts and changing weather patterns, but there will also be new farmland opening up due to the same. But all that depends on our continued supply of pesticides, fertilisers, etc. and our oil is running out. The double trap of peaking oil supplies and global warming make this all much worse than either one would be.

As for the massive die off of industrialised nations (and indeed all nations), I cannot speak for anyone else, but I'm not recommending it as a desired course, but predicting it as an inevitable course. The fact remains that even if we got green very fast (we can't) the Earth just can't sustain the population levels we're reaching. People are going to die even if we change our lifestyle drastically, starting with those living on the coast of undeveloped nations. (Bangladesh I'm looking at you.) Eventually we'll drop to a suistainable level, simply due to natural pressures. Look at the population growth and die off of animals on islands when lacking natural predators. We're going to see something similar with our own population. It sucks, but it's inevitable.

Personally, I'm less concerned with climate change than I am with the predicted near extinction of many ocean species, or the elimination of sensitive ecosystems (like rain forests and jungles) in the name of progress.

This is actually tightly tied to climate change to the point where you can't speak of one without speaking of the other, and they have many of the same root causes and interdepancies. Oh, and replace "near extinction of many ocean species" with "oceanic mass extinction event." Why? Well, because of the same thing that's causing much of the climate change: CO2. Here's the problem, CO2 in atmosphere balances with CO2 in the oceans. It takes some time for interchange, but while it takes a while it's an extraordinarily regular process that can be tightly modeled. Effectively, the ocean is a massive carbon sink whch we've been filling as fast as it will absorb our emissions.

Now, the thing is that CO2 doesn't remain CO2 after it's been absorbed, it binds with a water molecule to become H2CO3, or carbonic acid - the same stuff you find in soft drinks. The ocean is by nature basic, and all the animal and plant species are dependant on it remaining basic. Espeically those that use calcium to form shells or other structures - you can't uptake calcium carbonates in the water when it's too acidic. Long story short, we're causing the ocean's pH to drop crazy fast (relatively speaking) which is going to destroy the coral reefs, dissolve most shell-creatures, and disrupt many food chains. The result? Well, we're not entirely sure, but we've got a precident.

Back when the dinosaurs went extinct, the meteor that hit the Earth unloaded a massive amount of sulphuric acid into the water, on the order of what we're doing with carbonic acid. The result? A mass extinction event. A third of all marine genera disappeared along with half of all coral species. It took two million years for recovery to occur, and that even after a relative quick recovery from the pH spike - decades instead of the milennia we're looking at.

Worst case scenario we see a new age of the jellyfish and slimes.

All of these things are linked to humanity's unwillingness to think ahead. In other words, it's a bigger problem than "explode a few nukes and throw up dust to cool the planet," and "let's kill off 90% of humans" isn't realistic. Anybody here willing to off themselves to save the Earth? The solution to climate change is greener alternatives - solar power, cleaner burning fossil fuels, recycling, etc.

The problem with that is that it assumes that we can still save the Earth in a state that can still support our current population. Even if we all magically do switch to green alternatives (which seems unlikely until we're already far far past the point of no return) the Earth may not be able to support us. We're still facing a world in which there are going to be a lot fewer people. The question at this point is how many will that be?

I would compare nukes in the atmosphere or killing people off to liposuction or stomach stapling for people trying to lose weight. They are quick and easy solutions, but they ignore the real problem, which is human behavior. Changing behavior is not easy, but that's what's required.

To carry out your comparison: The Earth's biosphere is to the point where if we don't implement a few quick and dirty solutions, we won't be alive long enough to implement the real solutions. To make a comparison I'd be more comfortable with, the best cure for depression is often therapy and psychological help, but sometimes you have to dope people up on drugs just to get them to live long enough to get that help.

Not that I advocate mass androcide or detonation of nukes, but I do predict that we will not be able to keep the human population at its current levels without destroying the Earth's capacity to support us. Of course there will be humans, let alone other sorts of life, around even after the disasters I think are in store, but it won't be anything near as numerous, sprawling, and energy intensive as what we've got now. Simply put, it can't. Our current way of living requires a massive influx of natural resources that are rapidly dwindling, and produces waste that is destabilising our environment. Either we shape up, or we go extinct - that's evolution in action. And even if we do shape up, there are lean years ahead.

[Eris]

Ghetto edit: That should have been anthrocide, not androcide. I don't hate men. Really.

[Spyder]

Move the population elsewhere, or at least part of it anyway.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Maybe it's time to live underground a la Issac Asimov's Robots Series.

[Coyote]

Sikon, what is it about iron fertilization of the oceans that works? I've heard of this but I'm unfamiliar with what it is supposed to accomplish.

As for "killing off everyone/portions of everyone" in the industrialized, power-hungry nations, I'm sorry but it is precisely the advanced, power-hungry nations that have the infrastructure and knowledge base to find the solutions we need. Wiping out European, American, and portions of the Asian populace because they have cars and microwaves leaves millions of third-worlders who consider deforestation for cows, mass trash burnings, and open sewage pits to be the high point of civilized living.

The nuclear bombs issue may be scientifically accurate, but we already know that the public reaction will be one of pucker-factor induced hysteria at the very idea that we can "nuke ourselves out of the problem".

One realisitc and attainable thing that can be started right now is follow Brazil's example and switch to ethanol. In the case of the USA, wehere we have little sugar cane, we can use corn. We can also use biodiesel. Combining ethanol or biodiesel engines with electric-hybrid powertrains will further increase the results. The government needs to mandate harsher pollution control standrads, and mileage standards, for cars and set the pace by replacing all government fleet vehicles (US mail, schools busses, gov't sedans, etc) with these efficient vehicles.

Nuclear power should be expanded, and the electricity grid should be updated for maximum efficientcy using the latest in power-conductive technology. More reliance on public transportation should be pushed-- perhaps change building codes so that all new buildings in an urban area must have, as part of their foundation (where geologically possible) the basics of a subway access made so that underground trains can be quickly built into public infrastructure.

"Green Buildings" should also be written into zoning laws, and compliance written into existing buildings as soon as it is feasable to bring them up to standard. Buildings are upgraded and re-wired, re-plumbed, etc, over the years and it should be mandated that the next maintenance cycle must include as much Green Tech as applicable to the building type.

Perhaps in some areas, underground expansion should be considered before adding more surface buildings. That becomes cost prohibitive quickly, though.

[darthbob88]

If I understand it correctly, iron fertilization is intended to boost algae growth. Nutrient rich waters may not have enough iron to support life, so you physically distribute iron fertilizers and life should bloom.

As far as this applies to global warming, it's based on the fact that these creatures usually live in carbonate shells which take up CO2. When they die, that carbon goes to the bottom of the ocean, and 20-30% of that ends up in the benthos, where it's isolated from the atmosphere for several centuries. Furthermore, some planktons produce dimethyl sulfide, part of which enters the atmosphere to eventually create clouds and reduce the albedo of the planet. Wikipedia.

[K. A. Pital]

The nuclear bombs issue may be scientifically accurate, but we already know that the public reaction will be one of pucker-factor induced hysteria at the very idea that we can "nuke ourselves out of the problem"

The public is a bunch of fools anyway. I don't see why reasonable people have to cower before mob rule and blatant ochlocracy. Of course, if there _are_ any reasonable people left in the governments, not just populist lobby-bought assholes.

Look what you wrote about expanding nuclear power and public transport. Most simpletons will object to this too ("Chernobyl Hiroshima us all!!" and "I like my SUV and fuck your Metro, it's a french word anyway").

All those measures rest on the ability of a government to go against the public sentiment at times and listen to a more educated minority. To scientists who develop viable models of enviromental solution.

[Sikon]

Sikon, what is it about iron fertilization of the oceans that works? I've heard of this but I'm unfamiliar with what it is supposed to accomplish.

I see darthbob88 already covered the topic well.

Iron seems to be the prime limiting nutrient on ecological productivity in much of the ocean away from coastal areas, limiting the growth of phytoplankton, the primary basis of the marine food chain. If lots of phytoplankton grow, they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to incorporate the carbon into their bodies, much like growing forests in that regard. They also release dimethyl sulfide, which becomes sulfate aerosols, causing an additional cooling effect by indirectly increasing cloud formation, increasing earth's average reflectivity to sunlight. Well, at least that's the way it would be supposed to work. Experimental results do suggest several million tons or less of iron could eliminate 3 gigatons of CO2, for a cost of tens of billions of dollars or less, relatively inexpensive. The National Research Council has estimated that iron fertilization could remove 2 billion tons of carbon every year, which would be 7 gigatons a year of carbon dioxide.

Continuing manmade greenhouse gas emissions are 7 gigatons of carbon or around 26 gigatons of CO2 annually from fossil fuels, plus more from other anthropogenic sources, including methane from agriculture. Reports seem to suggest that iron fertilization couldn't stop global warming by itself, and, of course, it wouldn't solve other problems like peak oil. But it might help, significantly slowing down global warming. There is some uncertainty about actual effects if iron fertilization is done full-scale and in the long-term, even if it could have negative effects, as mentioned in the first article. However, aside from some having a bias against geoengineering in general, there could be logic in starting iron fertilization gradually, continuing to increase so long as costs and any negative effects were exceeded by the probably major measured benefits.

**************

What could be particularly interesting is if iron fertilization was combined with other measures, like other sequesterization techniques, and, of course, a move away from fossil fuels in general. A combined strategy could accomplish much.

On a somewhat separate topic, a curious idea I hadn't seen before is crop residue sequesterization as described here, though this argues it would be better used as biomass fuel.

**************

Although the Greenland ice cap has enough millions of cubic kilometers of ice to raise sea levels by 7 meters, it is estimated that it would take centuries to melt fully. The opening post's 2027 scenario is mainly just interesting for asking what measures could mitigate global warming quickly, though the related issue of peak oil might much occur by then. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions for global warming estimate an increase in average surface temperature of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 compared to 1990. For 2050 relative to 1990, it is 0.8 to 2.6 degrees Celsius. Due to glacier and ice cap melting plus some thermal expansion of seawater, sea level rise is estimated to be 0.05-meters to 0.32-meters. The figures are variable since the IPCC tries to account for various different scenarios of significant likelihood as described in their report. With that said, there is an increasing long-term effect, plus other problems with fossil fuel usage.

[Admiral_Icehawk]

Nuclear is a good short term solution (hundred years) that will not radically change peoples lives and destroy nations economies.
Electric cars for example have often been stated as an alternative power scource to stem global, good, but all they do increase city power usage which if you life in a coal powered city, like us Melbournians (Australia) only increases pollution.
The enviromental concious that we have should be exported to China, India and other countires that have the rescouses and cause the pollution.

I like nuclear the most because if helps the enviroment but annoys the hippies and enviromental celebs at same time.