Global Warming: Past the point of no return

[TarkinLarson]

We are causing an extinction event just by our normal activity, even without taking climate change into account. The loss of biodiversity means we destroy a treasure of scientific data and useful molecules, and at the same time make the world less hospitable for us. Just for that, we should protect the environment.

Then there is the ethical question. Coming to a place and ****ing it up beyond repair is usually considered not an acceptable behavior, extending that reasoning to nature makes sense. It doesn't mean keeping it under a glass bubble, but it would be nice if we stopped logging prime forest to grow unhealthy palm oil and raise cattle, or to throw millions of tons of long lived toxic waste by using disposable plastic crap.

I support you entirely in your statement. I was perhaps a little simplistic, but I just wanted to get across the point that sometimes things do change around us regardless of our intervention. A lot of people may (I have no proof or research on this, so it's anecdotal) instinctively want to keep everything the same, perhaps incorrectly. But, we need to do need to compensate for our actions, however it is within an already dynamic and ever changing environment.

Trying to keep on track however, what would you propose as a solution to the OPs question? If in the case of a run-away non self repairing climate change/global warming, what interventions could humanity then do to cool or rectify the situation?

Edited April 17, 2014 by TarkinLarson
S.P.A.G.

[Ralathon]

One thing, however, I would like to say is I often think that humanity is a little arrogant in thinking the planet should stay exactly how we want it (or how it is at the moment). Species evolve and become extinct over time regardless of human intervention. The same with the climate which changes over millions of years. I am not arguing against human induced climate change to any degree. I am just wondering how many people want to keep everything exactly how it is, when in reality it is meant to change.

The problem is the speed at which the earth is changing and the reduced biodiversity due to our other activities.

Temperature changes over the course a million years are nothing to worry about, life will adapt without issues. But the current changes are on the scale of a few centuries, way too fast for evolution to adapt. To make things worse we've already damaged the biosphere due to farming, overfishing etc. Making the planet all the more vulnerable to mass extinctions. The rapid changes in climate will also be damaging to our infrastructure and economy. We designed our cities according to the current coastlines, not the coastlines after Greenland melts.

All these drastic measures aren't there to keep climate change at bay, they're there to slow things down to a point at which we and the earth can cope with it. Right now we do not have the technology or resources to restore the biospheres of the earth to the state of a few thousand years ago. It would be a shame if we lost the required biodiversity before we have the ability to balance humanity and nature.

[Idobox]

I support you entirely in your statement. I was perhaps a little simplistic, but I just wanted to get across the point that sometimes things do change around us regardless of our intervention. A lot of people may (I have no proof or research on this, so it's anecdotal) instinctively want to keep everything the same, perhaps incorrectly. But, we need to do need to compensate for our actions, however it is within an already dynamic and ever changing environment.

Trying to keep on track however, what would you propose as a solution to the OPs question? If in the case of a run-away non self repairing climate change/global warming, what interventions could humanity then do to cool or rectify the situation?

Stop using fossil fuels and reduce population in a first time.

Then transform biomass (weeds, wood, seaweeds, whatever can be harvested without hurting food supply) into coal (by heating it, via solar or nuclear) and put it back underground. I don't think capturing CO2 from the atmosphere via industrial processes is not as efficient, but I'm open on that point.

[Vanamonde]

We can disagree with each other without throwing around terms like "idiots," guys. Watch the tone, please.

[SargeRho]

Again, there is no need to reduce the population, current arable land is sufficient to feed everyone on Earth. And we can make more. Hell, global warming might just produce *more* arable land.

[Idobox]

Again, there is no need to reduce the population, current arable land is sufficient to feed everyone on Earth. And we can make more. Hell, global warming might just produce *more* arable land.

The main point of reducing the population is to decrease our impact while keeping good living conditions. Because 8 or 9 billion people with no fossil fuels, it means living conditions similar to the poorest countries in the world.

Even if we go full nuclear or renewables for electricity production, our transportation infrastructure, metallurgy and chemical industry would stop to a halt.

[SargeRho]

Transportation can be almost entirely electrified, exept for cargo ships and perhaps airplanes. It might actually be possible to electrify cargo ships by using microwave energy transmission. It's possible to produce fossil fuels artificially, from algae and other sources. If you do that while producing energy without CO2 emissions, you have net zero emissions.

[Scotius]

And there might be no need to "store weeds underground". Nature will do this just fine - elevated sea water temperatures will allow for saltwater plants blooms. Dead plants will sink to the bottom, depositing carbon under kilometers of water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event Like this

[78stonewobble]

And there might be no need to "store weeds underground". Nature will do this just fine - elevated sea water temperatures will allow for saltwater plants blooms. Dead plants will sink to the bottom, depositing carbon under kilometers of water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event Like this

Though offcourse some weeds are allways better hidden.

...

Sorry, couldn't help that one.

EDIT: Oh interesting link there! Thanks for that.

Edited April 17, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[KASASpace]

Again, there is no need to reduce the population, current arable land is sufficient to feed everyone on Earth. And we can make more. Hell, global warming might just produce *more* arable land.

You are forgetting human nature:

People want to keep what's theirs.

And as such, the land people own probably won't be so easily given to the farmers.

[Rondon]

The main point of reducing the population is to decrease our impact while keeping good living conditions. Because 8 or 9 billion people with no fossil fuels, it means living conditions similar to the poorest countries in the world.

Even if we go full nuclear or renewables for electricity production, our transportation infrastructure, metallurgy and chemical industry would stop to a halt.

Hang on: 8-9 billion, so the population rises between 15%-30% over a 50 year period and the economy collapses?

The cost from switching to renewables is not catastrophically high and is constantly falling, having to pay between (1.5 - 2) times your current electric bill is not going to result in the end of civilization.

If there were trouble adapting, unconventional fossil fuels could pad out the time, if need be.

[Nuke]

the us navy recently found a way to extract fuel from seawater. using co2 and hydrogen in the ocean rather than fossil fuels you can make fuel production more carbon neutral. of course i very much doubt that this method is cheap, and probibly only useful for anyone with a much underutilized nuclear reactor.

[Ralathon]

the us navy recently found a way to extract fuel from seawater. using co2 and hydrogen in the ocean rather than fossil fuels you can make fuel production more carbon neutral. of course i very much doubt that this method is cheap, and probibly only useful for anyone with a much underutilized nuclear reactor.

Yea, that's the Sabatier reaction. They are looking to use that for in situ fuel generation on Mars as well, to power a MethaLox engine.

Problem is that it requires energy to make the methane. The main problem is the hydrogen gas, if you need to make that by electrolysing water you're going to lose energy in the net process. So this is more like a battery than an actual power source. Perfect for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier that needs hydrocarbons for its fighter jets, not so perfect for a carbon neutral economy. Although I suppose you could use nuclear reactors to produce the stuff and then run cars on them, like the proposed Hydrogen fuel cycle.

[NASAFanboy]

As for stemming population growth, I have the strangest solution ever, and while it may be inappropiate, I feel the urge to bring up this proposal.

Have the government quickly mass-produce and distribute condoms. Lots and lots of condoms. Condoms to every young male wiith a partner, condoms to every married couple, condoms to anyone who is of puberty age and ready to reproduce, and make them either dirt cheap or free (And very durable). After that, you would see population growth declining. You have to realize; alot of young adults nowadays nolonger want kids as badly as the baby boomers, they only attempt reproduction for the pleasure they get out of it (And in truth, seeing society today, the reproduction process is something akin to a species-wide universal sport of some sort - atleast, thats how many view it).

There is no need for genocide on a massive scale like some suggest.

No need to kill 95% of the population. No need to poison water supplies of cities. No need to kill families, wipe out bloodlines, destroy culture, cause havoc in the social order...not that it would've worked anyways. Even serious talk of such a program would cause widespread rioting and revolts across every nation who showed a single indication of doing so, and those in power would more likely protect and save the rich first, which means that they'll kill of everyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in hand (The system will easily becme corrupt as people in power fight to save the skin on their own backs and leave the common folk to be killed off)- unless you do it voluntarily, in which case noone would volunteer and the government would still likely face dissent and revolts.

I know for a certain that if the government came to my town and ordered everyone to a extermination camp, I would grab my gun and go out with my friends and kill them.

A genocidal solution makes you as bad as Hitler. It is bad, because you are defining people for factors they cannot control. You aren't ID'ing them by behavior or achievements, but for simply being human.

Why is this different than executing or imprisoning people who would attempt to actively hamper or destroy a international-wide effort to save humanity?

Because we're defining them by their actions and for factors they can control. They have to want us extinct. They could've supported the effort and be just fine. But for this effort? No.

Execute people who actively attempt to destroy or slow down efforts to save humanity as whole.

But to execute millions of innocents puts you on the same level as Hitler and Stalin.

[Sillychris]

Have the government quickly mass-produce and distribute condoms. Lots and lots of condoms.

The catch is, condoms make *** a lot less fun. Especially the more durable ones.

[Nuke]

The catch is, condoms make *** a lot less fun. Especially the more durable ones.

dont blame the condoms on your horrible performance.

frankly the best way to reduce the birth rate is by improving education and quality of life across the board. contraception helps, but without the know how to use contraception effectively and having something to loose as a consequence of your indiscretion, its effectiveness is reduced greatly.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Nuke

[78stonewobble]

As for stemming population growth, I have the strangest solution ever, and while it may be inappropiate, I feel the urge to bring up this proposal.

Have the government quickly mass-produce and distribute condoms. Lots and lots of condoms. Condoms to every young male wiith a partner, condoms to every married couple, condoms to anyone who is of puberty age and ready to reproduce, and make them either dirt cheap or free (And very durable). After that, you would see population growth declining. You have to realize; alot of young adults nowadays nolonger want kids as badly as the baby boomers, they only attempt reproduction for the pleasure they get out of it (And in truth, seeing society today, the reproduction process is something akin to a species-wide universal sport of some sort - atleast, thats how many view it).

There is no need for genocide on a massive scale like some suggest.

No need to kill 95% of the population. No need to poison water supplies of cities. No need to kill families, wipe out bloodlines, destroy culture, cause havoc in the social order...not that it would've worked anyways. Even serious talk of such a program would cause widespread rioting and revolts across every nation who showed a single indication of doing so, and those in power would more likely protect and save the rich first, which means that they'll kill of everyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in hand (The system will easily becme corrupt as people in power fight to save the skin on their own backs and leave the common folk to be killed off)- unless you do it voluntarily, in which case noone would volunteer and the government would still likely face dissent and revolts.

I know for a certain that if the government came to my town and ordered everyone to a extermination camp, I would grab my gun and go out with my friends and kill them.

A genocidal solution makes you as bad as Hitler. It is bad, because you are defining people for factors they cannot control. You aren't ID'ing them by behavior or achievements, but for simply being human.

Why is this different than executing or imprisoning people who would attempt to actively hamper or destroy a international-wide effort to save humanity?

Because we're defining them by their actions and for factors they can control. They have to want us extinct. They could've supported the effort and be just fine. But for this effort? No.

Execute people who actively attempt to destroy or slow down efforts to save humanity as whole.

But to execute millions of innocents puts you on the same level as Hitler and Stalin.

Personally I like the condom idea, but that would save alot of lives though, due to the prevention of STD spread.

Sidenote to the rest: Except that if you're a resident in an industrialised nation you are allready participating in a mass murder, just by living as you do. Judged by your actions so to speak.

[rkman]

Wow. First we are idiots for 'believing' GW, now we are participating in a mass murder. Nice going, Stonewobble. Not trying to politicize/derail the discussion, are we?

[Idobox]

Transportation can be almost entirely electrified, exept for cargo ships and perhaps airplanes. It might actually be possible to electrify cargo ships by using microwave energy transmission. It's possible to produce fossil fuels artificially, from algae and other sources. If you do that while producing energy without CO2 emissions, you have net zero emissions.

That would require scrapping all our automobiles and roughly doubling our electricity production, and it also mean completely redesigning cities (bye bye suburbs). If we reduce the population by half, the change becomes much easier. Ships are insignificant, and could run on battery+solar, or nuclear. Microwave is terribly inefficient for that.

And there might be no need to "store weeds underground". Nature will do this just fine

Sure, but it's a slow process. We want something that works in centuries, not over 500 thousand years.

Hang on: 8-9 billion, so the population rises between 15%-30% over a 50 year period and the economy collapses?

The cost from switching to renewables is not catastrophically high and is constantly falling, having to pay between (1.5 - 2) times your current electric bill is not going to result in the end of civilization.

If there were trouble adapting, unconventional fossil fuels could pad out the time, if need be.

9 billion people cannot live on Earth with current western standards, there simply aren't enough resources. And the 3 billion people who live in abject poverty are not going to accept staying at that level just so we can keep living our way.

Switching to renewables is tremendously expensive. First, you have to consider electricity is roughly 1/3 of the energy in a developed country, electricity being quite expensive for things like heating and several industrial processes (smelting iron from ore for example). Then you have to take into account that renewables are expensive, not just the PV panels themselves, but the massive restructuring of the distribution network, the need for storage and for backup power plants. Because renewables are not reliable, you have to move electricity from place to place, the pattern changing regularly, and you need gas and coal plants everywhere for those days where there is not wind nor sun anywhere, so basically a complete production capability that is not used a lot.

Looking at Germany, they went from 6% in 2000 to 25% renewable today. They now reject more CO2 than they used too, and the bill is 50% to 100% more expensive.

I'm not saying not to do it, but saying it's cheap is plain wrong.

Have the government quickly mass-produce and distribute condoms.

Condoms will only prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and that still only if people use them.

Give incentives for people not to have children (ie money), and you will see the birth rate drop almost immediately. For example, give 50$ a month for girls that are in school and don't have children, and 20$ for women of single children, and everything will get better in places like India or Africa (studies show educated women and later first-child bearing correlate with almost everything that is good, like less children, better health, better economy, less violence...).

[Ralathon]

That would require scrapping all our automobiles and roughly doubling our electricity production, and it also mean completely redesigning cities (bye bye suburbs). If we reduce the population by half, the change becomes much easier. Ships are insignificant, and could run on battery+solar, or nuclear. Microwave is terribly inefficient for that.

So in essence you're saying: "Hey, this would be pretty difficult. Let's instead slaughter half the world population!". Because if I have to pick between redesigning our infrastructure and mass murder on a unprecedented scale I'm going to pick the former. I think anyone with any sense of morality would agree with me.

[TheExplosionist]

Apart from hydroelectric dams, "renewables" are useless.

Unless we burn coal/peat/lignite/fracked gas until the air is so polluted with heavy metals that 99% of people get terminal cancer by age 30, start building nuke plants which is unpopular or wait for fusion despite fewer and fewer people going into physics or engineering, it's inevitable that western living standards will be decreased drastically.

[Aghanim]

Renewables are not useless! However it is not the only solution. Solar only make sense in a distributed generation, with some sort of power storage. Nuclear fission/fusion works for base load, however people are afraid of nukes. I used to be really against nukes until I learn that nuke isn't that dangerous

[Idobox]

So in essence you're saying: "Hey, this would be pretty difficult. Let's instead slaughter half the world population!". Because if I have to pick between redesigning our infrastructure and mass murder on a unprecedented scale I'm going to pick the former. I think anyone with any sense of morality would agree with me.

I'm saying everything becomes easier with less people. And I don't propose to kill people, just to reduce the number that are born, because not being born is better than starving to death or being killed in a resource war.

[TheExplosionist]

Population control is political suicide and people of Islamic culture or from "istan" countries don't want to know or care.

[ScallopPotato]

The ideas of population control and resource reduction relies on the assumption that less people/more renewables = less CO2 = reduction in CO2 levels = reduced warming. The problem with that is that CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time, so any sort of decrease is really delayed. My understanding is that current CO2 levels are at the point now that even drastic, draconian steps to reduce carbon emissions wouldn't stop the increased warming in the 21st century.

Still, my questions about space mirrors haven't been answered. What sort of materials would work well for a space mirror (lightweight and strong), and how much surface area would be needed at ESL1 to reduce the global temperature by 1 degree Celsius?