Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Climate change solutions.

dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 11:03:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Create a big inland sea in Australia (intersection of SA, NSW, and QLD) to mitigate the world-wide sea level rise plus cool the continent and increase rainfall as a side benefit.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 9:00:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm afraid anything we would do would create an ice age, which has the potential to disrupt more humans than warming.

We don't even have a full understanding of what causes fundamental shifts in climate because there are so many variables. Speak of solutions worries me until we have a much better understanding of those variables and how they work in conjunction.

The other concept which is very important is how do we nudge climate the other direction if we and an natural causes overshoot it.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 9:00:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm afraid anything we would do would create an ice age, which has the potential to disrupt more humans than warming.

We don't even have a full understanding of what causes fundamental shifts in climate because there are so many variables. Speak of solutions worries me until we have a much better understanding of those variables and how they work in conjunction.

The other concept which is very important is how do we nudge climate the other direction if we and an natural causes overshoot it.

The only way to stop global warming is to bring our net carbon emissions down to zero or less.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:28:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:11:34 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:00:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm afraid anything we would do would create an ice age, which has the potential to disrupt more humans than warming.

We don't even have a full understanding of what causes fundamental shifts in climate because there are so many variables. Speak of solutions worries me until we have a much better understanding of those variables and how they work in conjunction.

The other concept which is very important is how do we nudge climate the other direction if we and an natural causes overshoot it.

The only way to stop global warming is to bring our net carbon emissions down to zero or less.

I'm pretty confident we could cause a global cooling if we were so inclined. Make roofs, roads, parking lots with reflective materials, dump iron in the oceans, make a giant sun reflector that orbits the earth, etc
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:37:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:28:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:11:34 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:00:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm afraid anything we would do would create an ice age, which has the potential to disrupt more humans than warming.

We don't even have a full understanding of what causes fundamental shifts in climate because there are so many variables. Speak of solutions worries me until we have a much better understanding of those variables and how they work in conjunction.

The other concept which is very important is how do we nudge climate the other direction if we and an natural causes overshoot it.

The only way to stop global warming is to bring our net carbon emissions down to zero or less.

I'm pretty confident we could cause a global cooling if we were so inclined. Make roofs, roads, parking lots with reflective materials, dump iron in the oceans, make a giant sun reflector that orbits the earth, etc

None of those are really practical solutions, and they don't solve the carbon problem. Carbon traps radiation inside the atmosphere and acidifies the ocean. If we don't curb (and preferably reverse) carbon emissions, we will not stop global warming.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:37:37 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:28:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:11:34 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:00:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm afraid anything we would do would create an ice age, which has the potential to disrupt more humans than warming.

We don't even have a full understanding of what causes fundamental shifts in climate because there are so many variables. Speak of solutions worries me until we have a much better understanding of those variables and how they work in conjunction.

The other concept which is very important is how do we nudge climate the other direction if we and an natural causes overshoot it.

The only way to stop global warming is to bring our net carbon emissions down to zero or less.

I'm pretty confident we could cause a global cooling if we were so inclined. Make roofs, roads, parking lots with reflective materials, dump iron in the oceans, make a giant sun reflector that orbits the earth, etc

None of those are really practical solutions, and they don't solve the carbon problem. Carbon traps radiation inside the atmosphere and acidifies the ocean. If we don't curb (and preferably reverse) carbon emissions, we will not stop global warming.

If practicality is the measuring stick.......although, seeding the ocean with iron may not be that challenging.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2015 10:51:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2015 10:44:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:37:37 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:28:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 10:11:34 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/8/2015 9:00:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm afraid anything we would do would create an ice age, which has the potential to disrupt more humans than warming.

We don't even have a full understanding of what causes fundamental shifts in climate because there are so many variables. Speak of solutions worries me until we have a much better understanding of those variables and how they work in conjunction.

The other concept which is very important is how do we nudge climate the other direction if we and an natural causes overshoot it.

The only way to stop global warming is to bring our net carbon emissions down to zero or less.

I'm pretty confident we could cause a global cooling if we were so inclined. Make roofs, roads, parking lots with reflective materials, dump iron in the oceans, make a giant sun reflector that orbits the earth, etc

None of those are really practical solutions, and they don't solve the carbon problem. Carbon traps radiation inside the atmosphere and acidifies the ocean. If we don't curb (and preferably reverse) carbon emissions, we will not stop global warming.

If practicality is the measuring stick.......although, seeding the ocean with iron may not be that challenging.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Perhaps, but we still need to cut our emissions. If we can't do that, we're not gonna win.
THsea
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 8:36:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like the idea of supporting industries that have negative co2 results... Some agriculture traps more than is released in its processing. I first heard about this when learning about hempcrete.
http://inhabitat.com...

I think I remember hearing that it actually isn't as strong as concrete, but that doesn't matter. It's a good insulator and the hemp fields help reduce co2. I'm sure there are other crops. Evaluating the carbon capture of plants and promoting those plants use could be fruitful.

Then again, perhaps understanding this mechanism and making GMO's that do it better. Just a thought, I don't particularly like the idea of GMO crops for open air pollinators... So I don't think it would be a good idea for hemp. Well, if it was grown far enough from other plants to not alter the non-GMO gene pool, I suppose that would be acceptable... Or I suppose totally feminized fields with low hermaphroditism rates would help. I don't know, just a random thought.
toretorden
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 9:10:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's hardly enough, but I like green roofs a lot. In our big cities, every roof could (should?) be a small garden - or perhaps even a forest?

Get freaky with it.
THsea
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:34:51 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 9:10:46 AM, toretorden wrote:
It's hardly enough, but I like green roofs a lot. In our big cities, every roof could (should?) be a small garden - or perhaps even a forest?

Get freaky with it.

I don't think it would be enough either, but I meant to suggest thinking of altering industries along these lines. Especially if its agricultural industries and related products that add to emissions... This could add up to be a considerable help, maybe even making up for other industries we have yet to make better solutions for.

I like green roof's too, but comparing the impact of green roofs to thousands of hectares... It's just different scales. Especially with hemp, which can be grown very quickly getting multiple harvests in a season.. I need to look into green roof's, I have seen them but haven't read much about them. I wonder how they are kept from damaging the house.. It's a mystery to me!

I watched this today, I'm not so knowledgeable about physics.. But the guy/kid explains it very well! Really cool technology which would help with our emissions!
https://www.ted.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 7:50:34 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
The University of Montana. "Plants absorb less carbon dioxide than models show, study shows." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 December 2015. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151210031824.htm

interesting read
THsea
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 5:57:59 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 7:50:34 PM, slo1 wrote:
The University of Montana. "Plants absorb less carbon dioxide than models show, study shows." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 December 2015. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151210031824.htm

interesting read

I think this article is implying that since some people thought the increased co2 "should" increase growth rates, that their rates of co2 being absorbed should be increase as well. At the end of the article they say there are a few other factors that are effecting growing seasons... It's a good article, just the title seems a little misleading from the articles content. Well, maybe not. I don't know, it's late for me.

I've heard about some of these claims and models... Heck, I know some indoor pot growers that use co2 in their tents to increase growth. I don't think its as useful for that as it is for killing bugs during infestations!

It says its done with satellites, really interesting! Thanks for sharing the article! Crazy stuff.

I still think finding more efficient plants, and possibly engineering better plants for this could be a good idea. Not the best but everything that helps, helps!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 6:36:06 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
It is not true that the only way to stop global warming is to reduce CO2. The amount if incident solar radiation is a direct control. Less sunlight and the earth gets colder. That's been demonstrated with volcanic eruptions. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s and threw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth for a couple of years, until it cleared.

One of the proposed methods for climate engineering is to inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere. That's been proposed using a high altitude balloon. The amount of global warming so far is equivalent to only a 3% decrease in cloud cover, so using sulphates would not the noticeable. One cost estimate put it at about $800 billion. The cheapest estimate I've seen for reducing CO2 is $9 trillion. It probably way more than that.

A giant reflector in space is another possibility. Again, we are talking about blocking only 3% of the sun light with a bunch of small reflectors. In space, a reflector could be extremely thin. There is no wind or weather. Aluminum and solar energy are plentiful on the moon, so the idea is to fabricate the metal film on the moon and send it to earth orbit piece-by-piece with a rail gun.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 7:00:05 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 6:36:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is not true that the only way to stop global warming is to reduce CO2. The amount if incident solar radiation is a direct control. Less sunlight and the earth gets colder. That's been demonstrated with volcanic eruptions. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s and threw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth for a couple of years, until it cleared.

One of the proposed methods for climate engineering is to inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere. That's been proposed using a high altitude balloon. The amount of global warming so far is equivalent to only a 3% decrease in cloud cover, so using sulphates would not the noticeable. One cost estimate put it at about $800 billion. The cheapest estimate I've seen for reducing CO2 is $9 trillion. It probably way more than that.

A giant reflector in space is another possibility. Again, we are talking about blocking only 3% of the sun light with a bunch of small reflectors. In space, a reflector could be extremely thin. There is no wind or weather. Aluminum and solar energy are plentiful on the moon, so the idea is to fabricate the metal film on the moon and send it to earth orbit piece-by-piece with a rail gun.

You can use all the coolants you want, but failure to reduce CO2 emissions means the problem will just come back.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 5:15:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 7:00:05 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:36:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is not true that the only way to stop global warming is to reduce CO2. The amount if incident solar radiation is a direct control. Less sunlight and the earth gets colder. That's been demonstrated with volcanic eruptions. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s and threw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth for a couple of years, until it cleared.

One of the proposed methods for climate engineering is to inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere. That's been proposed using a high altitude balloon. The amount of global warming so far is equivalent to only a 3% decrease in cloud cover, so using sulphates would not the noticeable. One cost estimate put it at about $800 billion. The cheapest estimate I've seen for reducing CO2 is $9 trillion. It probably way more than that.

A giant reflector in space is another possibility. Again, we are talking about blocking only 3% of the sun light with a bunch of small reflectors. In space, a reflector could be extremely thin. There is no wind or weather. Aluminum and solar energy are plentiful on the moon, so the idea is to fabricate the metal film on the moon and send it to earth orbit piece-by-piece with a rail gun.

You can use all the coolants you want, but failure to reduce CO2 emissions means the problem will just come back.

It seems you are not just talking about stopping global warming your are talking about trying to eliminate all climate change variability. In that case there are extreme amounts of variability and reasons for climate change that would need to be address. There probably would be priods of time where it would be beneficial to have large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and periods of low CO2.

Being solely focused on CO2 is short sighted though. Check out this new finding on the variability of the tilt of the earth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:55:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 5:15:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
It seems you are not just talking about stopping global warming your are talking about trying to eliminate all climate change variability. In that case there are extreme amounts of variability and reasons for climate change that would need to be address. There probably would be priods of time where it would be beneficial to have large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and periods of low CO2.

Being solely focused on CO2 is short sighted though. Check out this new finding on the variability of the tilt of the earth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Carbon accumulates in the atmosphere and traps longwave radiation, thus raising the average temperature of the planet. If we don't stop or reverse carbon emissions, the global temperature and ocean acidity will rise too rapidly for Natural Selection to handle, and many species will go extinct. We're talking about the next hundred years, not the next million; stuff like the Earth's tilt has negligible change during our timeframe of interest.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:48:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 7:00:05 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:36:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is not true that the only way to stop global warming is to reduce CO2. The amount if incident solar radiation is a direct control. Less sunlight and the earth gets colder. That's been demonstrated with volcanic eruptions. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s and threw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth for a couple of years, until it cleared.

One of the proposed methods for climate engineering is to inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere. That's been proposed using a high altitude balloon. The amount of global warming so far is equivalent to only a 3% decrease in cloud cover, so using sulphates would not the noticeable. One cost estimate put it at about $800 billion. The cheapest estimate I've seen for reducing CO2 is $9 trillion. It probably way more than that.

A giant reflector in space is another possibility. Again, we are talking about blocking only 3% of the sun light with a bunch of small reflectors. In space, a reflector could be extremely thin. There is no wind or weather. Aluminum and solar energy are plentiful on the moon, so the idea is to fabricate the metal film on the moon and send it to earth orbit piece-by-piece with a rail gun.

You can use all the coolants you want, but failure to reduce CO2 emissions means the problem will just come back.

Go back to an agrarian society with a life expectancy of 40.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:57:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 11:48:29 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 12/14/2015 7:00:05 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:36:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is not true that the only way to stop global warming is to reduce CO2. The amount if incident solar radiation is a direct control. Less sunlight and the earth gets colder. That's been demonstrated with volcanic eruptions. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s and threw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth for a couple of years, until it cleared.

One of the proposed methods for climate engineering is to inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere. That's been proposed using a high altitude balloon. The amount of global warming so far is equivalent to only a 3% decrease in cloud cover, so using sulphates would not the noticeable. One cost estimate put it at about $800 billion. The cheapest estimate I've seen for reducing CO2 is $9 trillion. It probably way more than that.

A giant reflector in space is another possibility. Again, we are talking about blocking only 3% of the sun light with a bunch of small reflectors. In space, a reflector could be extremely thin. There is no wind or weather. Aluminum and solar energy are plentiful on the moon, so the idea is to fabricate the metal film on the moon and send it to earth orbit piece-by-piece with a rail gun.

You can use all the coolants you want, but failure to reduce CO2 emissions means the problem will just come back.

Go back to an agrarian society with a life expectancy of 40.

That's not a realistic solution.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 12:09:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 11:57:47 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:48:29 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 12/14/2015 7:00:05 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:36:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is not true that the only way to stop global warming is to reduce CO2. The amount if incident solar radiation is a direct control. Less sunlight and the earth gets colder. That's been demonstrated with volcanic eruptions. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s and threw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth for a couple of years, until it cleared.

One of the proposed methods for climate engineering is to inject sulphates into the upper atmosphere. That's been proposed using a high altitude balloon. The amount of global warming so far is equivalent to only a 3% decrease in cloud cover, so using sulphates would not the noticeable. One cost estimate put it at about $800 billion. The cheapest estimate I've seen for reducing CO2 is $9 trillion. It probably way more than that.

A giant reflector in space is another possibility. Again, we are talking about blocking only 3% of the sun light with a bunch of small reflectors. In space, a reflector could be extremely thin. There is no wind or weather. Aluminum and solar energy are plentiful on the moon, so the idea is to fabricate the metal film on the moon and send it to earth orbit piece-by-piece with a rail gun.

You can use all the coolants you want, but failure to reduce CO2 emissions means the problem will just come back.

Go back to an agrarian society with a life expectancy of 40.

That's not a realistic solution.

You want 0 emissions? That's your solution.

We have a good standard of living because we harness energy to complete labour for us. Those who do not live as well as us would like to. This is a problem that currently has no solution. Even the current 30% agreement is virtually impossible to meet.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 12:13:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/6/2015 11:03:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
Create a big inland sea in Australia (intersection of SA, NSW, and QLD) to mitigate the world-wide sea level rise plus cool the continent and increase rainfall as a side benefit.

Nono, natural sea level rise is going to flood that plain anyways. It's not big enough to have any impact on sea levels at all. Also, Adelaide is probably going to save their city by barricading the water out, like London. So an inland sea probably won't happen.

Although admittedly a cooler continent would be lovely.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...