Global Warming: Past the point of no return

[Rhidian]

Imagine a scenario where, in the future, Global Warming has been confirmed to be past the Point of No Return. Where it has been proven that should the Earth be left to its natural devices with no human intervention, the average temperature would keep going higher until it reaches unhabitable temperatures.

In such a future, what would humanity have to do in order to return from the Point of No Return? What man-made solutions would be needed to change the average global temperature back to a sustainable level?

[sal_vager]

[OFFICIAL MODERATOR COMMENT]

Gentlemen, remember that these forums are not the place for conspiracy theories, politics, arguments or personal attacks, and the Science labs especially are a place for evidence based discussion, not faith.

This thread will be allowed to remain open only as long as you all keep within the forum rules, at the point this changes this thread will be closed, thank you for your co-operation.

[/OFFICIAL MODERATOR COMMENT]

[andrewas]

Sun shade to moderate incoming sunlight while we adjust the composition of the atmosphere as a more permanent solution. Taken to extremes, such techniques can restore the climate even from a venus-style runaway greenhouse, though if we let it get anywhere near that bad, we will inevitably lose most of the biosphere. In more minor cases, it might be enough to start sequestering CO2 and managing greenhouse gasses to avoid needing a solar shade - as with every repair job, it's much cheaper and less disruptive to fix it early rather than letting things fall apart until we have to take action.

[xcorps]

First step: Kill all the cows. Cow flatulence and belching is the primary contributor to greenhouse effect. Get rid of cows and you're good to go. That's what the Administration says anyway.

[Phoenix Aerospace]

To answer the first question, it's already happened. To answer the second, in order to reduce climate change to pre-industrial levels, we'll probably have to do some pretty drastic stuff. Needless to say, it won't be pretty, and it may very well entail a period of significant economic and technological stagnation in exchange for survival.

- Complete conversion to sustainable power sources

- Extensive, UN-imposed restrictions on industrial and household carbon emissions

- Global one-child or no-child policies

- Euthanasia of a large portion of humanity to lower population to sustainable levels

- Massive geoengineering by the means of geological carbon-trapping

- Dispersing reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere

- Deployment of space-based mirrors to redirect sunlight

- Re-tooling economies to free population from excess consumption

- Genetic modification of crops, trees, algae in order to increase carbon absorbtion

[jwenting]

best solution would be to genetically engineer ourselves so we can survive the new conditions...

Or find another place to live more to our liking, like space settlements in the asteroid belt.

- - - Updated - - -

To answer the first question, it's already happened. To answer the second, in order to reduce climate change to pre-industrial levels, we'll probably have to do some pretty drastic stuff. Needless to say, it won't be pretty, and it may very well entail a period of significant economic and technological stagnation in exchange for survival.

- Complete conversion to sustainable power sources

- Extensive, UN-imposed restrictions on industrial and household carbon emissions

- Global one-child or no-child policies

- Euthanasia of a large portion of humanity to lower population to sustainable levels

- Massive geoengineering by the means of geological carbon-trapping

- Dispersing reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere

- Deployment of space-based mirrors to redirect sunlight

- Re-tooling economies to free population from excess consumption

- Genetic modification of crops, trees, algae in order to increase carbon absorbtion

wrong on so many levels it doesn't warrant thinking about...

[Rhidian]

Well, in the future scenario described in the first post, reducing greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect past the point of no return, since that point is defined as the point at which the greenhouse gasses are already at a sufficient enough concentration to trap radiation. Reducing emissions would be a supplement to other solutions that aim to reduce the actual concentrations in the atmosphere.

To that end, the solution would most likely be to reduce the concentrations of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or to somehow limit the UV radiation that enters or remains in the atmosphere.

To the mods: I apologize, I should have picked a better title for the topic. I am not trying to espouse a conspiracy theory like saying that point has actually already happened; rather, I was wanting to create a discussion on what humanity could do in a theoretical scenario. Is there a way for me to change the topic title?

[Scotius]

About a billion years ago Earth turned into a giant snowball, and life barely survived that ordeal. 65 millions years ago dinosaurs enjoyed global temperatures 3-4 degrees higher than today's. Yet life was thriving - even Antarctica was habitable, and able to support its own population of animals. Many people still do not understand that we live in Glacial Age. It can be argued that global warming actually restores natural conditions on our planet.

[ZetaX]

To answer the first question, it's already happened.

You really believe that climate change has already reached a point where, and I quote, "the average temperature would keep going higher until it reaches unhabitable temperatures"¿ It is very doubtful if such a state will ever be possible unless our descendants decide to artificially heat up earth by fusion powered heaters or whatever, for the sake of it or whatever weird reasong. Earth had higher amounts of CO2 in earlier eras without it going haywire and it might even be doubtful if any amount of greenhous gases will suffice for that at this distance to the sun.

[Ralathon]

First of all, we probably already are past the point of no return. The ice on Antartica is melting at frightening rates and the methane stored in permafrost is starting to release. I don't think current climate change prevention methods have enough of an impact to do anything except slowing the effects. To really prevent climate change we'd have to take rather drastic steps (Solar shields, releasing sulfate in the upper atmo etc).

Luckily though, climate change isn't as bad as the media hype makes it out to be. It'll do a lot of damage to the economy, but humanity and earth will survive just fine. It'll probably stabilize in a ice free polar cap situation, just like during most of the Eocene. It will likely cause a mass extinction since many species can't keep up with the rapid changes in biomes. While we're already causing a mass extinction simply due to habitat destruction etc, this is still something we should try to avoid.

So humanity will probably try to build some defenses against the ocean at first and hopefully have the technology to geoengineer the planet on a large scale when Antartica and Greenland really start to break down badly.

[Brotoro]

Launch giant sunshades into space between the Sun and Earth. Pump particulates high into the atmosphere. Use ships to spray ocean water into the air to increase cloud formation. Build more nuclear power plants and open Yucca a Mountain, ya babies.

Then go, "Oops," when you accidentally tip the Earth into the next ice age prematurely.

[vger]

To really prevent climate change we'd have to take rather drastic steps (releasing sulfate in the upper atmo).

Drat, that was the concept I read about in the past year or so, but it doesn't seem like it. I seem to recall a solution had been formulated for releasing something into the atmosphere that would actually 'cleanse' it through chemical bonding, rather than darkening the sky. Does this ring a bell to anyone?

wrong on so many levels it doesn't warrant thinking about...

Things that are wrong when things are good, have a way of becoming a necessity when things go bad.

Then go, "Oops," when you accidentally tip the Earth into the next ice age prematurely.

I'd rather put up with an ice age. Research shows that hotter temperatures are more inclined to make humans go psycho.

[sal_vager]

You may find this is relevant to the discussion.

[78stonewobble]

You really believe that climate change has already reached a point where, and I quote, "the average temperature would keep going higher until it reaches unhabitable temperatures"¿ It is very doubtful if such a state will ever be possible unless our descendants decide to artificially heat up earth by fusion powered heaters or whatever, for the sake of it or whatever weird reasong. Earth had higher amounts of CO2 in earlier eras without it going haywire and it might even be doubtful if any amount of greenhous gases will suffice for that at this distance to the sun.

Haven't the suns total luminosity increased somewhat since then? It's not much over 1000's of years, but those eras of many times higher co2 in the atmosphere are quite a few millions years back right?

If I remember correctly and that's allways a big if...

[lajoswinkler]

To answer the first question, it's already happened. To answer the second, in order to reduce climate change to pre-industrial levels, we'll probably have to do some pretty drastic stuff. Needless to say, it won't be pretty, and it may very well entail a period of significant economic and technological stagnation in exchange for survival.

- Complete conversion to sustainable power sources

- Extensive, UN-imposed restrictions on industrial and household carbon emissions

- Global one-child or no-child policies

- Euthanasia of a large portion of humanity to lower population to sustainable levels

- Massive geoengineering by the means of geological carbon-trapping

- Dispersing reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere

- Deployment of space-based mirrors to redirect sunlight

- Re-tooling economies to free population from excess consumption

- Genetic modification of crops, trees, algae in order to increase carbon absorbtion

You're misinterpreting the meaning of the word "euthanasia". What you're referring to is genocide. Euthanasia of a human being is terminating a life with his/her consent, for example if someone is suffering and wants to die. Any killing besides that is murder, and massive murders would be exactly genocide.

If anyone would try to do that, massive global planetary war would begin. That would also lower the number of people on Earth, but would dump a huge load of pollutants into the biosphere, because wars are like that.

Space mirrors would not be viable, and no-child policy could not be enforced. Someone needs to procreate in order to continue the line of human species. Procreation is a human right, not a civil right, so not only such downgrading policy would be a crime, but it raises the question - who gets that right?

Who gets killed? Who gets the right to procreate?

Gee, I wonder if we could pull out a history lesson here...

About a billion years ago Earth turned into a giant snowball, and life barely survived that ordeal. 65 millions years ago dinosaurs enjoyed global temperatures 3-4 degrees higher than today's. Yet life was thriving - even Antarctica was habitable, and able to support its own population of animals. Many people still do not understand that we live in Glacial Age. It can be argued that global warming actually restores natural conditions on our planet.

"Natural conditions"?

This was also a natural condition.

It is called the Hadean era. It happened in nature. Therefore it's natural. What's your point?

So humanity will probably try to build some defenses against the ocean at first and hopefully have the technology to geoengineer the planet on a large scale when Antartica and Greenland really start to break down badly.

You're forgetting that the humanity is not a homogeneous entity. Geopolitical factors exist and will not go away. What would you do with hundreds of millions of people whose habitat is permanently unhabitable because of insane new climate?

You really believe that climate change has already reached a point where, and I quote, "the average temperature would keep going higher until it reaches unhabitable temperatures"¿ It is very doubtful if such a state will ever be possible unless our descendants decide to artificially heat up earth by fusion powered heaters or whatever, for the sake of it or whatever weird reasong. Earth had higher amounts of CO2 in earlier eras without it going haywire and it might even be doubtful if any amount of greenhous gases will suffice for that at this distance to the sun.

Yes, the concentration of CO2 is variable throughout our geological history, but all the changes which did not result in massive extinctions were very slow. Even the extinction related ones were slow, compared to what we've done in this insanely short amount of time. The slow speed was a result of natural processes, all tightly bonded in feedback loops. With conscious humans capable of massive changes, while they're barely bonded by those loops, you get system breakdown.

I don't know if we've crossed the point of no return (and it's not the topic of this thread), but mentioning the past conditions is not an argument.

[Coldfinger008]

Basicallly, we will all be massively screwed over.

Like a less drastic version of the day after tomorrow, but with more war in the process.

Live your lives as long as you can, in a way that is fun.

Stop worrying and love the bomb.

Humanity won´t change, so just make the best of it.

And the fact that i even read this far proves me a mighty hypocrite, i am sorry XD

[falofonos]

You're misinterpreting the meaning of the word "euthanasia". What you're referring to is genocide. Euthanasia of a human being is terminating a life with his/her consent, for example if someone is suffering and wants to die. Any killing besides that is murder, and massive murders would be exactly genocide..

See soylent green

Space mirrors would not be viable

Other than their potential use as weapons, not sure why not.

no-child policy could not be enforced.

Perhaps not through law, persuasion and a mandatory temporary birth control implant though...

[vger]

Even if we were to abandon all forms of power generation, population growth would STILL come back to bite us in the arse eventually.

If you want to see where overpopulation combined with energy consumption will lead, we've got a convenient preview of it in Beijing.

And I saw it estimated somewhere, that even if we were able to magically turn on a global utopia switch tomorrow, we already couldn't grow enough food to feed everyone. There's not enough arable land.

The trouble is we're living in an industrial age but our stone age instincts still think that only 1 out of 10 kids will live to see their 2nd birthday.

Edited April 13, 2014 by vger

[Nuke]

the current state of the planet is that the poles are mosty uninhabitable, and the equator is a little warm but livable. i have a feeling things will flip in this scenario. the equator becomes uninhabitable, and the poles hold the bulk of humanity. the north would be ruled by eu, canada, russia, and the united states of alaska. the south would be run by australia, new zealand, south africa, chile, argentena, and the antarctician emprie. the rest of the world will be ruled by giant sandworms.

i dont think we are close enough to the sun to become a venus-ish hell hole.

It is called the Hadean era. It happened in nature. Therefore it's natural. What's your point?

i dont think that counts. that environment was caused by a planetary collision (the one that formed the moon). its also interesting to note that the first life came into existence in the era directly following that one. earth tends more to snowball, i dont think we have ever had any long term bbq-grill-earth events since the end of late heavy bombardment.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Nuke

[lajoswinkler]

See soylent green

Other than their potential use as weapons, not sure why not.

Perhaps not through law, persuasion and a mandatory temporary birth control implant though...

Shielding Earth from excessive solar radiation is not like putting an umbrella over your cellphone. Do you have any idea how much area should be covered? How much material would have to be hauled in the high orbit, because in LEO it would quickly decay? Massive amounts. It would be an insanely monstruous project.

Even if we were to abandon all forms of power generation, population growth would STILL come back to bite us in the arse eventually.

If you want to see where overpopulation combined with energy consumption will lead, we've got a convenient preview of it in Beijing.

And I saw it estimated somewhere, that even if we were able to magically turn on a global utopia switch tomorrow, we already couldn't grow enough food to feed everyone. There's not enough arable land.

The trouble is we're living in an industrial age but our stone age instincts still think that only 1 out of 10 kids will live to see their 2nd birthday.

There is enough food for everyone. The West throws away enough to feed Africa. It's about the unequal distribution, not the scarcity of the actual food sources.

i dont think that counts. that environment was caused by a planetary collision (the one that formed the moon). its also interesting to note that the first life came into existence in the era directly following that one.

Hadean starts with the formation of Earth protoplanet. That's nature as it is.

Edited April 13, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Nuke]

Hadean starts with the formation of Earth protoplanet. That's nature as it is.

point is that is part of earth's formation. a very violent, all be it natural event. you still cant compare that to events caused by climate change through biological/artificial means.

[Skyler4856]

To answer the first question, it's already happened. To answer the second, in order to reduce climate change to pre-industrial levels, we'll probably have to do some pretty drastic stuff. Needless to say, it won't be pretty, and it may very well entail a period of significant economic and technological stagnation in exchange for survival.

- Complete conversion to sustainable power sources

- Extensive, UN-imposed restrictions on industrial and household carbon emissions

- Global one-child or no-child policies

- Euthanasia of a large portion of humanity to lower population to sustainable levels

- Massive geoengineering by the means of geological carbon-trapping

- Dispersing reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere

- Deployment of space-based mirrors to redirect sunlight

- Re-tooling economies to free population from excess consumption

- Genetic modification of crops, trees, algae in order to increase carbon absorbtion

That's horrific, EUTHANASIA? FREAKING GENOCIDE? That is sick. Who decides who lives and who dies? Who is given such a god like power?

[Skyler4856]

See soylent green

Other than their potential use as weapons, not sure why not.

Perhaps not through law, persuasion and a mandatory temporary birth control implant though...

Imagine building mirrors with areas of hundreds of kilometers, without hitting satellites or micrometeorites, Drag would be intolerable, etc

[KASASpace]

Hmm, perhaps when this happens, we will have reached the technological level to gain enough energy to strip the Carbon off of the CO2 molecules, and make it into O2, and then destroy the majority of cities (only small towns left, cities were a REALLY bad idea).

Perhaps even return to hunter-gatherer situations, where it took 2000 calories to gain 2000 calories, and thus no "mass-produced" industrial fake food.

No reductions in population (there is still plenty of room for now...... in places like the North American Great Plains and if we terraformed Siberia [somehow..?])

And I would also recommend the construction of O'Neil Cylinders, or large polyhedrons to have self contained biospheres (to at least have some sort of room for expansion and extra food)

[KASASpace]

To answer the first question, it's already happened. To answer the second, in order to reduce climate change to pre-industrial levels, we'll probably have to do some pretty drastic stuff. Needless to say, it won't be pretty, and it may very well entail a period of significant economic and technological stagnation in exchange for survival.

- Complete conversion to sustainable power sources

- Extensive, UN-imposed restrictions on industrial and household carbon emissions

- Global one-child or no-child policies

- Euthanasia of a large portion of humanity to lower population to sustainable levels

- Massive geoengineering by the means of geological carbon-trapping

- Dispersing reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere

- Deployment of space-based mirrors to redirect sunlight

- Re-tooling economies to free population from excess consumption

- Genetic modification of crops, trees, algae in order to increase carbon absorbtion

No, just, no.

That's horrible. Killing people? That is never the answer, expand to space.

Restrictions on birth? Yeah, 8+ kids is ridiculous, but I think that 6 living kids would be the limit (1 out of every three would die in car accidents unless we got rid of cars).

Industries would have to resort to windmills and/or dams. Perhaps nuclear reactors.

Again, if we build large space-based objects that can contain a small biosphere, than we could expand there temporarily, using reshaped asteroids and mined asteroids.