6 ms·
Since stopping CO2 levels from rising is nigh impossible, the only option left it seems is something drastic like this (I'm reminded of Futurama where they drop
by idbehold 9y ago
Since stopping CO2 levels from rising is nigh impossible, the only option left it seems is something drastic like this (I'm reminded of Futurama where they drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every once in a while). It has the added benefit of being able to be done without depending on everyone else changing their habits.
I have a feeling that there are a bunch of these "plan B" solutions to our global climate change problem. It's that they are mostly just giving us more time before we have to actually deal with the problem. If the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation ever comes to a halt then we are really screwed, so if there's anything which could prevent that from happening it might be worth the risk.
- hyperbovine 9y agoUnless you can stop the marine ecosystem from cratering (virtually a given if CO2 levels continue to rise unabated) it's all for naught. Enjoy your lack of oxygen.
- idbehold 9y agoAgreed, these types of solutions are really just a stopgap (and a relatively short one at that). But that's always been the case. I mean, there's no beating entropy. Eventually the heat-death of the universe will make it, literally, all for naught.
- bdamm 9y agoThe difference between end of all time in however many tens of billions of years vs the economic collapse of human society in a handful of generations is a fairly major scale difference.
- idbehold 9y agoOh, there are plenty of things that will wipe out humans far earlier. I was just pointing out that there's always something threatening to destroy us.
- s_kilk 9y agoI just don't see the point in this. Knowing about the eventual heat-death of the universe doesn't make the immediate prospect of my family and I dying in a water riot any more palatable.
- KGIII 9y agoYeah, we've got less than two billion years before the Sun expands enough to cook off our atmosphere. I suspect we will be extinct before that, however. As a collective, we're not very bright.
- sslayer 9y agoReally we should just be focusing on building a time machine and re-populate the pre-human past. I imagine that no matter what happens, we could just populate infinite timelines (But we are more likely to already be on that exact timeline)
- KGIII 9y agoThat seems a bit of a long-shot. I'm not sure if it is less likely than us causing our own extinction, however. I don't watch a lot of movies, and I recall even fewer, but there is an appropriate line in The Matrix about how a human can be smart but humans are pretty dumb as a whole. It seems to be remarkably true.
- kahnpro 9y agoYou're thinking of Men in Black. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- KGIII 9y agoI suspect you're right. I don't watch many movies so I'll defer to you.
- bigbugbag 9y agoThis would be great, except time does not exist. it is an artificial human construct we use to explain ourselves some stuff we do not comprehend.
- bigbugbag 9y agoA handful of generations seems far fetched, a couple seems a loose estimation. next generation seems closer to reality. AFAIK the collapse has already begun and is happening right now.
- stcredzero 9y agoI'm highly dubious that all marine photosynthesis is going to be stopped easily. Do you have citations?
- pixl97 9y agoOn mobile so I'll let you search for it, but start at Wikipedia for anoxic oceanic event. You don't have to stop much photosynthesis for the oceans to produce huge amounts of deadly hydrogen sulfide
- damnfine 9y agoThe wiki does not support 'huge amounts', and makes some tenous connections to some localized events and worldwide extinction event ones, as do most of the people who bring this up. It makes it hard to have the same conversation if they are conflated. However, note the end of the wiki, where they state that the oxygenated state of the ocean currently is likely not the 'default' state of things if extrapolated beyond human history. It is certanly a concern. However there are ways to stimulate blooms, which may help serve to sequester carbon, and add oxygen in one fell swoop. Perhaps it is time to investigate the feasibility of such an action.
- darkmarmot 9y agohttps://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32815525/wignallTwit1996.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503698167&Signature=RolCR6KI65l2ni0ZTKbNJHMxgWI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOcean_anoxia_and_the_end-Permian_mass_ex.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32815525/wig...
- andai 9y ago<Error> <Code>AccessDenied</Code> <Message>Request has expired</Message>
- archagon 9y agoThe problem with geo-engineering solutions to global warming is that they would require global consent. Anything else would be a drastic violation of human rights, and potentially a cause for massive conflict. We all have to share the same planet, and some peoples might be drastically opposed to (potentially) irreversible processes such as the scattering of chemicals in the atmosphere. Any "for the good of mankind" justification is almost beside the point.
- idbehold 9y agoWait, so everyone is allowed to contribute to global climate change without permission, but we need everyone's agreement to prevent it?
- archagon 9y agoUnfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.
- cortesoft 9y agoIt wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.
- archagon 9y agoSure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)
- 9y ago
- stephengillie 9y agoThe Earth's orbit is too circular and our axis isn't tilted enough. We're at the maximal energy absorbing posture. In 100,000 years, we'll need this greenhouse blanket to keep our ice planet warm.
- Stratoscope 9y agoThose are some really interesting points; I wonder if you could elaborate a bit? Thanks! (Feel free to edit your comment to add detail instead of replying; keeps the thread shorter that way.)
- putsteadywere 9y agoAnd if we solve this problem, then maybe we'll still have a technological civilization in 100,000 years to solve that one.
- orthecreedence 9y agoSeems we already solved that one, just 100,000 years early.
- undersuit 9y agoHow does a rotating sphere, orbiting around another sphere every reach "maximal energy absorbing posture"?
- MiguelHudnandez 9y agoI'm a layman, but my mental model suggests that tidal-lock would be the relationship that raises the energy most on the receiving body. An example of that concept would be Mercury. A tidally-locked body would have nearly 50% of its area "cold," in other words it is not radiating any heat from the primary heat source out into space. Only heat reaching the cold side from atmospheric convection or internal conduction would be able to reach space. In Mercury's case, the lack of significant atmosphere reduces the flow of heat from the warm side to the cold side. A spheroid with any given amount of surface area exposed to equal heat / cold has the highest chance of preserving equilibrium. If that logic is true, correcting Earth's axis tilt should slightly increase the amount of energy radiated away. That would also produce more consistent temperatures between the equators and poles (raising sea levels by reducing the amount of frozen water proportionally). Needless to say that would have nearly incalculable side effects.
- njarboe 9y agoI think a really hard limit on the max CO2 acceptable that most everyone would agree to would be where outside air starts to feel stuffy to humans. I have not found a good study on this but indoor air quality people say around 1000 ppm CO2 and you should start trying to increase ventilation. If the atmosphere gets too high it will be hard to keep indoor air below that without CO2 scrubbers. Over 750ppm(?) CO2 in the atmosphere and one gets the horrible situation where one goes inside a CO2 controlled space instead of outside to get "some fresh air". Edit: Here is a decent article on a study of some cognitive effects of CO2 levels (http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-dioxide-impairs-decision-making-performance/ http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-...). Actual study paper (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/ https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/)
- aetherson 9y agoWe're at 400 ppm CO2 right now. So your feeling is that we'll probably start reducing carbon emissions once we double the amount of carbon in the air? 450 ppm is often held up as a catastrophic point of no return. I don't know if that's alarmist. Let's say it is! Maybe we'd have to get all the way to 600 ppm before it was genuinely a catastrophe. But I'm pretty confident that if we reach 700 ppm, we're fucked.
- gnopgnip 9y agoThe total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the amount produced and consumed by plants is very high compared to the amount produced by humans. Long term the solution is absolutely to reduce the CO2 produced by mankind through renewable energy, and reducing CO2 produced by agriculture. In the short term though carbon farming can sequester large amounts of carbon by growing on land that was previously desert, or the method mentioned in the linked page. Hopefully this slows down global warming enough to give humanity enough time to come up with a sustainable solution
- bigbugbag 9y agoJust so you know, fossil fuels are a renewable energy on a large enough timescale. It's the massive rate of consumption and waste of them which is the issue. Switching to biofuel or solar or wind at the same massive consumption rate will not fix the issue.
- andai 9y agoDo you mean that there do not exist any energy sources which are renewable at the rate we require, or that using such sources at the current / future rate would still be irresponsible for some reason?
- nikdaheratik 9y ago> fossil fuels are a renewable energy on a large enough timescale No they're not, at least coal isn't because it was formed from trees and other heavy cellulose based plant matter that wasn't broken down by microbes millions of years ago, but would be broken down today. Oil and Methane may be "renewable" but not in a timeline worth considering. Switching to other methods of generation would fix the problem of climate change caused by the release of CO2. Other issues are definitely important, but not on the same level as unchecked global warming.