As I see it played out in the media, the climate change controversy has been limited this this dichotomy:
a) climate change is man made and catastrophic and we must act to reduce consumption and thus carbon emissions if we are to save the planet
vs:
b) climate change is either cyclical (i.e., nonexistent from a policy perspective) or not that big a deal and reducing emissions is not worth the pain that would be caused
Is there a third possibility?
c) Climate change may be man made and catastrophic, but we can mitigate its effects easily and cheaply with a little simply geoengineering. There's no need to firebomb the problem when a well placed kick will do.
The last chapter of Super Freakonomics goes through a plethora of simple sounding ways in which global warming can be reversed even if the most fearmongering IPCC/ East Anglia scientists are precisely on point with their projections. The idea include:
- Releasing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it's too high to be washed out by rain, where it can serve to deflect enough Sun rays to reverse all the global warming cause by CO2 emissions. Apparently, that this could potentially work was proven by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and its effect on global temps in the early 90s.
- Artificial generation of clouds to have the same effect
Now, I'm no scientist. I don't know that these things would actually work and I am not familiar enough with potential side effects to know if these are feasible (although it seems that whatever ill effects these things may have would be easily reversible by shutting down the mechanism).
But why aren't these possibilities being discussed? I have not seen one article in a main stream publication that discusses these ideas, which are being worked on as we speak.
Measures were proposed at Copenhagen (and before) that would shrink the World economy by trillions of dollars. The sulfur dioxide idea would apparently cost as little as $20m to start and $10m in annual maintenance; an efficiency factor of roughly 100,000.
If there are concrete reasons why these are bad ideas, fine. But I can't stand when people argue that Geoengineering is immoral or that we shouldn't "change nature." We intentionally change nature all the time. If we didn't chemically increase agricultural yields, we'd all starve.
Does anyone think that perhaps, just perhaps, Geoengineering as a solution to climate change is not discussed as much as it is because it would avoid the necessity for political side effects of wealth redistribution that are attendant to cap and trade models and that if a Geoengineering model were proven to be an antidote to the problem, that funding might dry up for the IPCC and its members?
Originally posted by sh76Its about politics, not science. If they were really concerned they would be converting to nuclear power which is carbon free instead of just glibly saying that increases in energy costs will triggor us to find alternatives. In fact, look at all the alternatives being produced in Europe where cap and trade is the law of the land. I hear they ride around on magic rugs now instead of cars.
As I see it played out in the media, the climate change controversy has been limited this this dichotomy:
a) climate change is man made and catastrophic and we must act to reduce consumption and thus carbon emissions if we are to save the planet
vs:
b) climate change is either cyclical (i.e., nonexistent from a policy perspective) or not that big a dea e an antidote to the problem, that funding might dry up for the IPCC and its members?
Originally posted by sh76I'm a big admirer of finding cost effective ways to deal with a problems, but screwing with the atmosphere to undo the effects of our previous screwings with the atmosphere reminds me too much of our past failures at undoing nature with nature.
As I see it played out in the media, the climate change controversy has been limited this this dichotomy:
a) climate change is man made and catastrophic and we must act to reduce consumption and thus carbon emissions if we are to save the planet
vs:
b) climate change is either cyclical (i.e., nonexistent from a policy perspective) or not that big a dea e an antidote to the problem, that funding might dry up for the IPCC and its members?
I mean if people here distrust scientists about the causes of climate change why would they trust them to pump our atmosphere with massive amounts of SO2?
Originally posted by telerionright leave it alone, some other disaster will cause more problems first, say a nuc war, or volcano erupting.
I'm a big admirer of finding cost effective ways to deal with a problems, but screwing with the atmosphere to undo the effects of our previous screwings with the atmosphere reminds me too much of our past failures at undoing nature with nature.
I mean if people here distrust scientists about the causes of climate change why would they trust them to pump our atmosphere with massive amounts of SO2?
Originally posted by telerionIt would only take an amount of SO2 that would be much less than 1% of the SO2 already released onto the troposphere. In fact, you could build a long hose on existing coal burning factories and not even release any additional SO2. In addition, all SO2 released would eventually fall back to Earth like that released by coal burning plants in any case. The process could be stopped at any time and within a few months, its effect would be eliminated.
I'm a big admirer of finding cost effective ways to deal with a problems, but screwing with the atmosphere to undo the effects of our previous screwings with the atmosphere reminds me too much of our past failures at undoing nature with nature.
I mean if people here distrust scientists about the causes of climate change why would they trust them to pump our atmosphere with massive amounts of SO2?
Doesn't seem like screwing with nature much more than we already do.
Originally posted by telerionExactly!! I know I don't favor this at all.
I'm a big admirer of finding cost effective ways to deal with a problems, but screwing with the atmosphere to undo the effects of our previous screwings with the atmosphere reminds me too much of our past failures at undoing nature with nature.
I mean if people here distrust scientists about the causes of climate change why would they trust them to pump our atmosphere with massive amounts of SO2?
Originally posted by telerionThe necessity for this solution assumes a trust of scientists about the causes of climate change.
I mean if people here distrust scientists about the causes of climate change why would they trust them to pump our atmosphere with massive amounts of SO2?
Otherwise, solutions are unnecessary.
Originally posted by sh76Even if I did, I don't trust mankind to know exactly what he is doing in regard to the weather. Heck, the local news only gets the weather predictions correct it seems half the time. 😛
That's because you don't think there's a problem in the first place.
the problem with the climate change debate is the same as every other political problem.
It seems like people just enjoy fighting each other. No need to let actual solutions to the problem mess up a good fracas.
(as for weather forecasts, I find the weather channel is amazingly accurate. Next time I'm in Ohio, I'll avoid relying on the local news for weather forecasts.)😉
Originally posted by sh76Cloud seeding results in the stuff you release into the atmosphere to fall back to earth. This stuff is a health hazard to the people below. You don't want to be doing this stuff over fallout areas with people under them...
Does anyone think that perhaps, just perhaps, Geoengineering as a solution to climate change is not discussed as much as it is because it would avoid the necessity for political side effects of wealth redistribution that are attendant to cap and trade models and that if a Geoengineering model were proven to be an antidote to the problem, that funding might dry up for the IPCC and its members?
When volcanoes erupt the main thing that blocks out the sun is the fine particulate matter...not gases.
The reason why you don't see articles on this stuff is because it doesn't work.
Originally posted by zeeblebotwhat? Snow in winter??? Shocking!!
hellll-OOOO! even obama's calling it "snowmageddon"!
Funny, though. Warmer temps in winter actually mean higher snowfall amounts because once the temp drops really low, it becomes harder for the atmosphere to retain moisture.
As global temps, in this case temps in the Gulf Of Mexico and atlantic, rise we see more evaporation of the oceans and more moisture getting put into the atmosphere. This moisture can't stay aloft and must come down. This results in bigger and more frequent storms.
In the summer we see this as rain/floods.
In winter we see this as snow/blizzards.
Amazing what a little bit of knowledge can do to assuage the clueless.