Global Warming: Past the point of no return

[Idobox]

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?

Reducing population doesn't solve the problem, but it diminishes the damage. Also, less people mean lots of land will become unused, transform back to forest a sink massive amounts of carbon.

The most common material used for space mirrors is mylar with aluminium.

[Comrade Jenkens]

We can currently afford to feed many more people than we have on the planet if people were prepared to stop eating meat. The higher up the food chain you go the less efficient the production of food becomes. A cow can only feed a few people but the amount of grain it is fed on during its life will feed many more. I'd hate to have to give up meat personally but in the future it may become necessary. The removal of the millions of cows would drastically cut greenhouse emissions as well.

[Rondon]

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.

Well its better than murder, but population control like that wont work either.

so say you want to halve the global population in a helpful amount of time, by enforcing this kind of stringent population control (Im presuming you're thinking of a global one child policy) you're going to have a very unhealthy ratio between the aging and the young, in society. More production will have to be turned away from development and towards supporting pensioners.

It would be more reasonable to speed up the rate at which birth rates are decreasing, rather than a direct population control measures better welfare would achieve that aim.

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.

Just first of all with regard to Germany the increase is due to burning more lignite, you can attribute that to there rapid decommissioning of Nuclear power plants, and I didn't say it would be a cheap, the amount there paying extra is the same amount I said switching to renewable would cost and there goal is to achieve a majority (60%) renewable share by 2050.

Switching to renewables will be expensive, but how exactly does a smaller population/industry and less specialization/efficiency aide the solution?

[Simon Ross]

Stop worrying, the Earth will be fine

We on the other hand may be a wee bit [sIGNAL LOST] !

Edited April 18, 2014 by sal_vager
Profanity

[Skyler4856]

Offer $1,000,000 per volunteer, payable to the person's estate/inheritors. I think you might be surprised how many volunteers would take that offer. Not genocide, no involuntary deaths.

Note: I'm playing devil's advocate here, I would hate for things to reach a point where such measures were necessary.

That isn't economically viable,

[Hector]

Settle down guys. The best thing we can do is..... nothing.

Seriously.

Leave the free market alone to do its work, and the human species will do what it does best: adapt. To do that, we need resources. For resources, we need money. And that means not killing off half the population, or instituting harsh economic controls.

Oh, and there's not going to be any apocalyptic global warming scenario. We're more likely to create apocalyptic scenarios by trying to prevent it (murdering half the population? Seriously?? Even draconian economic and CO2 controls would create apocalyptic economic conditions... you think 2007-2008 was bad? Or 1931? You ain't seen nothing yet, if you try some of the ideas suggested in this thread).

Anyways, the models that predict apocalyptic warming are flat wrong. From 1998-2014 (16 years), there's been absolutely no trend in global temperatures, up or down. Our best models say, however, temps should be continuing to increase. They're not. Temps are now well below the confidence intervals of the models, i.e. the models are wrong.

This doesn't necessarily mean global warming won't, or isn't happening. It does mean the rate and scale of the warming is almost certainly overrated.

The science is simple: Doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels yields a +0.6C forcing. The models depend on positive feedbacks to amplify that forcing into catastrophic temps. The reality is, the actual temp gain observed is less than the forcing from CO2, which strongly indicates the feedbacks are negative (really, most natural systems have negative feedbacks, or they wouldn't exist for long). Ergo.... stop freaking yourselves out, grab a beer, enjoy life, and stop worrying about global warming. If you want something to worry about, there's plenty of threats out there that will kill us long before CO2 induced warming will.

[Guest]

The thing with global warming is that it's a long-term process. There were big climate changes in the last few years, this year's winter was an example. While global warming panic is more devastating than the warming, we should probably move away from hydrocarbon fuels. Nuclear, and later fusion, are the only power sources that could keep up with increasing energy demands. As such, it makes sense to invest in them.

Also, I've got a great idea that would both reduce population and global warming. Execute all anti-nuclear activists, take all their money, sell their stuff and build nuclear power plants for it. Really, that's all it'd take. If people weren't so afraid of atomic power, we'd have decommissioned all hydrocarbon-based plants and replaced them with nuclear ones a long time ago. Any efforts on global population control are futile and stupid, renewables are worthless in the long run and we shouldn't be sacrificing anything just so that a few critters can live. Humanity first, then we can think about the rest. When you put it that way, going nuclear is the best way to go. There are literally no drawbacks to this idea, spent nuclear fuel can easily be disposed of, contrary to what people say, or it could be recycled. Since it's pretty radioactive, you could also get some mileage out of it by gathering it in a pile and using it to heat something.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Guest

[Hector]

Indeed. If you are really serious about CO2, there's two technologies you need to get behind:

-Fission (for obvious reasons)

-Fracking (LOTS and LOTS of cheap natural gas. Use this as an interim fuel- can convert coal plants to it- and as a transportation fuel. It is economical and produces far less CO2 per unit of power than coal)

Wind power is insane land use policy. Honestly it makes me mad when I drive through the midwest and see all the land used up by turbines. It also tends to produce the least power when you need it the most.

Wind turbines are incredibly efficient machines for extracting money from taxpayers. They're not good for much else, except under very particular circumstances. Widespread use isn't a good use of resources.

Solar makes some sense, in limited applications. Coating the desert in mirrors is nuts. Putting solar panels on your roof in a market where the cost of electricity is high makes some sense, but we shouldn't be subsidizing it with tax credits.

[Vanamonde]

Yeah, that's about enough xenophobia and accusations of genocide for one day. Thread closed.