Some Solutions To Global Warming

[JESMKS]

On March 16, our local newspaper (Seattle Times) ran a half page syndicated article by Seth Robinson of the Associated Press on some proposed solutions to global warming. They included seeding seas with iron to induce plankton growth, a man-made volcanoe that would shoot tremendous amounts of sulfur high into the stratosphere, a space sunshade produced by trillions of small reflectors placed between the Earth and the Sun and an artificial forest of tree like machines designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Not long ago on another thread, I posted a story as how our removal of particulates from emissions over the past fifty years has improved air quality but has contributed to global warming by reducing solar energy reflection. The idea about the man-made volcano gave me another idea. During WWII, our destroyers could produce smoke at will by injecting oil into their exhast systems. It shouldn't be too hard to design a similar system that could operate on aircraft jet engines. Planes flying at high altitude on trans polar flights could turn on their smoke generators. It wouldn't take too many years before they created an Artic haze. This haze would reflect solar energy back into space and tend to cool the Artic region, reduce glacier and sea ice melting and as an added benefit provide some cloud seeding to increase winter snow packs. This idea would probably get a lot of objections from the clean air addicts. There objections might be countered by calling this proposal a "Save the Polar Bear" project.
Jack

[Swordfish]

I would think that using sulfur would not be too good of an idea. You may be solving one problem (global warming) but you'd be contributing to another (acid rain).

In any case, these sound more like temporary solutions. We can reflect sunlight away from the planet, sure, but it doesn't do anything for treating the cause of global warming (except that fake forest bit, though that sounds a bit far fetched to me).

I think a real simple, albeit temporary, solution would be to pain people's rooftops white. Though that would take massive coordination.

[Doodler]

I think a real simple, albeit temporary, solution would be to pain people's rooftops white. Though that would take massive coordination.

The building industry is a step and a half ahead of you. Not only are white roofs available, they're getting REAL popular.

[NEOWatcher]

In any case, these sound more like temporary solutions. We can reflect sunlight away from the planet, sure, but it doesn't do anything for treating the cause of global warming (except that fake forest bit, though that sounds a bit far fetched to me).

Yep; that was my take on it. We had the same article, with some illustrations tied to it.

Most of the solutions were either real expensive, had long term side effects, were irreversible, or were just plain risky.

What I would like to know, what about these artificial forests? Wouldn't a real forest do the same thing?

[novaderrik]

but a real forest doesn't make billions of $$$ in profit for the companies that make the CO2 scrubbers and the companies that put them up. but i guess tree nurseries would get to make some cash out of the deal, tho.
follow the money..

[greenfeather]

I think a real simple, albeit temporary, solution would be to pain people's rooftops white. Though that would take massive coordination.

What about those "living rooftops"? Plant some kind of C02-using vegetation on your roof and cool your city. I'm in favor of Planktonic Paint for your car roof too! (cars get pretty hot.)

[greenfeather]

but a real forest doesn't make billions of $$$ in profit for the companies that make the CO2 scrubbers and the companies that put them up. but i guess tree nurseries would get to make some cash out of the deal, tho.
follow the money..

Instead of being asked on our tax returns if we want $3 of our refund to go to political campaigns, why not give it to a global warming fund (not administered by politicians).

Heck, I'd give even more than $3 a year to save this planet! Why, I subscribed to our electric company's Wind Power option for $7 a month! Even though the skeptics say it's a boondoggle/ripoff.

[Argos]

It´s very funny... A solution to a problem we don´t know the cause of... Any intervention to 'save' the Earth from global warming would be dangerous at this point [if effective at all].

[Doodler]

What about those "living rooftops"? Plant some kind of C02-using vegetation on your roof and cool your city. I'm in favor of Planktonic Paint for your car roof too! (cars get pretty hot.)

Nice idea, greenfeather, but speaking from experience, its already an uphill struggle to get clients to care for plants we put at ground level.

The only greenery I've seen on a roof was a client who bought a building that Sears occupies currently that was so unmaintained, a clogged roof drain had six foot tall cattails growing out of it.

[Larry Jacks]

Just keep in mind that sometimes good intentions have very bad consequences, e.g. kudzu (AKA "the plant that ate the South").

Kudzu as an invasive exotic

Kudzu was introduced from Japan into the United States in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, where it was promoted as a forage crop and an ornamental plant. From 1935 to the early 1950s the Soil Conservation Service encouraged farmers in the South to plant kudzu to reduce soil erosion, and the Civilian Conservation Corps planted it widely for many years. Kudzu was recognized as a pest weed by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1953, and was removed from its list of permissible cover plants.

Kudzu is now common throughout most of the southeastern United States, and has been found as far north as Pennsylvania, and as far south as Key West, Florida. It has also been found growing (rather inexplicably) in Clackamas County, Oregon in 2000 [11]. In all, kudzu infests 20,000 to 30,000 square kilometres of land in the United States and costs around $500 million annually in lost cropland and control costs. It cannot tolerate extremely low freezing temperatures that bring the frost line down through its entire root system; however it does require some cold weather (a solid frost or freeze annually).

Kudzu is also becoming a problem in northeastern Australia.

Kudzu vines can make walking across an area nearly impossible, as it takes over all horizontal and vertical surfaces, both natural and artificial. Its dense growth obstructs all views and movement into the area. It kills or degrades other plants by smothering them under a solid blanket of leaves, by girdling woody stems and tree trunks, and by breaking branches or uprooting entire trees and shrubs through its weight.

The spread of kudzu is mainly by vegetative expansion by runners and rhizomes and by vines that root at the nodes to form new plants. Kudzu will also spread by seeds, which are contained in pods and mature in the autumn, although this is more rare. One or two viable seeds are produced per cluster of pods. These hard-coated seeds may not germinate for several years, which can result in the re-appearance of the species years after it was thought eradicated at a site.

[torque of the town]

It´s very funny... A solution to a problem we don´t know the cause of... Any intervention to 'save' the Earth from global warming would be dangerous at this point [if effective at all].

My sentiment entirely.

[Larry Jacks]

First, do no harm. Since there's still so much we don't understand about how the climate works, attempting to modify it could have disasterous consequences.

[DyerWolf]

They included seeding seas with iron to induce plankton growth, a man-made volcanoe that would shoot tremendous amounts of sulfur high into the stratosphere, a space sunshade produced by trillions of small reflectors placed between the Earth and the Sun and an artificial forest of tree like machines designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Kinda like surgically grafting a prosthetic leg on a man's back just because his foot itches...


I hope we figure out the problem before we apply any cure.



BTW - Everybody needs a prosthetic forehead on his real head. (TMBG)

[greenfeather]

Nice idea, greenfeather, but speaking from experience, its already an uphill struggle to get clients to care for plants we put at ground level.

The only greenery I've seen on a roof was a client who bought a building that Sears occupies currently that was so unmaintained, a clogged roof drain had six foot tall cattails growing out of it.

Yeah. I figure it won't catch on with the masses. It's just those avant-garde architect types, like the ones you see featured in WIRED magazine articles.

[greenfeather]

It´s very funny... A solution to a problem we don´t know the cause of... .

I think we have a pretty good idea of the cause.

I'm sure that the billions of tons of hydrocarbons pumped into the air from the combustion of fossil fuels has something to do with it. That carbon was buried underground for millions of years. Now all of a sudden we're spewing it back out. Duh!

[greenfeather]

On March 16, our local newspaper (Seattle Times) ran a half page syndicated article by Seth Robinson of the Associated Press on some proposed solutions to global warming. They included seeding seas with iron to induce plankton growth, a man-made volcanoe that would shoot tremendous amounts of sulfur high into the stratosphere, a space sunshade produced by trillions of small reflectors placed between the Earth and the Sun and an artificial forest of tree like machines designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

How about much easier solutions. A huge tax on gas-guzzlers, tax breaks for efficient cars, and some old fashioned discipline: everyone has to cut their driving by 1/3. Hey, that might mean cutting the work week! We could all stay home and chill out on our plant-filled rooftop gardens.

[Van Rijn]

How about much easier solutions. A huge tax on gas-guzzlers, tax breaks for efficient cars, and some old fashioned discipline: everyone has to cut their driving by 1/3. Hey, that might mean cutting the work week! We could all stay home and chill out on our plant-filled rooftop gardens.

Uhm. Cut the work week, and many people wouldn't be able to afford a home with a plant-filled rooftop garden. Personally, I'm not a heavy driver, so forcing me not to drive (I assume you're not suggesting voluntary participation) would be very hard.

I don't consider that at all easy, or reasonable.

[James_Digriz]

It´s very funny... A solution to a problem we don´t know the cause of... Any intervention to 'save' the Earth from global warming would be dangerous at this point [if effective at all].

Agree. I just heard today that no one konws what the influence of global rainfall is on global warming. There are just too many variables we know little about that may have an influence. That's why computer models that predict catastrophes are so often wrong.

[Ronald Brak]

It´s very funny... A solution to a problem we don´t know the cause of... Any intervention to 'save' the Earth from global warming would be dangerous at this point [if effective at all].

Well we do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we do know that we are increasing its concentration. I have a pretty radical idea for a "solution." It called, "Hey, let's try to not release so much CO2, guys." I realize it might seem pretty far out, but that's just the kind of wild and crazy guy I am.

[James_Digriz]

Well we do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we do know that we are increasing its concentration.

By a miniscule amount. There is data that shows that CO2 concentrations and temperature do not correlate. However, as you probably noticed today, there is a direct correlation between solar radiation and temperature.

[Ronald Brak]

By a miniscule amount

By more than a third since the start of the industrial revolution. A third isn't really miniscule.

There is data that shows that CO2 concentrations and temperature do not correlate.

Is there evidence that CO2 doesn't asorb specific frequencies of infrared radiation? If so that would be revolutionary, noble prize stuff. But given what we know about CO2 it doesn't seem possible to increase its concentrations without increasing the greenhouse effect. Unless of course it doesn't actually absorb infrared. In which case we might have to rewrite some physics books.

[JESMKS]

The longest record of CO2 monitoring is at Mauna Loa HI (1958 to present). In 1958 the concentration was about 316 ppm. It had an almost unifrom rise and was about 377 ppm in 2004, a rise of 61 ppm. Methane, which is a more effective greenhouse gas also had a rise during this period of time. Per cent is not a very informative method of reporting change. Going from 5 to 10 ppm would be a 100% increase.

[greenfeather]

Uhm. Cut the work week, and many people wouldn't be able to afford a home with a plant-filled rooftop garden. Personally, I'm not a heavy driver, so forcing me not to drive (I assume you're not suggesting voluntary participation) would be very hard.

I don't consider that at all easy, or reasonable.

It's not easy, but I'd prefer that kind of hardship to wacky experiments with our ocean, atmosphere etc. What if one of our experiments backfires?

[Ronald Brak]

I know you mean well Greenfeather, not wanting to take chances with human life and all, but there is no need to cut the working week to cut CO2 emissions. It doesn't really make economic sense. Working 3 days a week instead of 5 days a week might cut some carbon emissions, but it would make more sense to work the extra two days and use the money earned to replace some of our current carbon emmitting technology. For example replacing gas guzzelers with fuel efficent hybrids or installing carbon scrubbers in coal power plants.

And in case there are people who tend to get carried away reading this, note that I am not saying you can't work 3 days a week if you want to, nor am I saying that reducing carbon emissions will cost two fifths of our income.

[greenfeather]

I know you mean well Greenfeather, not wanting to take chances with human life and all, but there is no need to cut the working week to cut CO2 emissions.

Hey, I'd love a 4-day workweek!!

But seriously. Who makes diecisions about how much difference a conservation measure makes? For some weird reason they pushed back Daylight savings time 3 weeks. Now in the middle of March we have bright sunny evenings. The extra hour of daylight was supposed to conserve energy. I'm wondering how much of a difference that will make, and meanwhile I'm wandering around confused thinking it's summer already.

come to think of it, what with the climate change, mid-March IS almost summer! Excuse me, I gotta go plant my garden.

[Natural-Philosopher]

By more than a third since the start of the industrial revolution. A third isn't really miniscule.



Is there evidence that CO2 doesn't absorb specific frequencies of infrared radiation? If so that would be revolutionary, noble prize stuff. But given what we know about CO2 it doesn't seem possible to increase its concentrations without increasing the greenhouse effect. Unless of course it doesn't actually absorb infrared. In which case we might have to rewrite some physics books.

CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas; there is a trace of a trace increase that is indisputable. Its level is literally "microscopic" as the very word "micro" is a prefix meaning one millionth; and that is exactly the way we measure CO2, in parts per millions in the atmosphere. Increases of a third of microscopic is still microscopic.

It is also indisputable Science, that CO2 follows global temperature change, with a lag, and does not have a direct cause and effect relationship, and this lagging relationship is confirmed in the ice core records over hundreds of thousands of years. Those are the same ice core records, that Mr. Gore uses as evidence albeit with his qualifier of "complexity and complications". Those "complications" being the lag effect; and loss of cause and effect.

It is also indisputable that there is a cause and effect relationship between solar output and global warming. with a short lag of years. New Scientific findings have shown the process of increased solar wind diverting some cosmic ray particles from entering the atmosphere and creating clouds. H2O cloud cover is the ruling regulation mechanism for global temperature. Simple, Direct, historically proved, and a definite first order effect.

It is also indisputable that the absorption bands of frequencies that the CO2 molecule absorbs are finite, particular and becoming saturated. Once saturated, there is no additional GHG effect irregardless of how much more CO2 is added. Every additional gram of CO2 in the atmosphere has a logarithmically decreasing effect. The old Law of Diminishing Returns.

It is also pretty certain that the increases in CO2 attributed to Man cannot and will not continue ad infinitum.

The hydrocarbons simply aren't there to consume conveniently; and it is really primitive and wasteful to take valuable hydrocarbons and simply BURN them. So we won't, long term.

The technologies not to have to do so, are readily visible, and becoming realities as we speak. There are many and diverse. We do not have to rely on only on hope. Any, or all, or likeliest some combination, will suffice. Wind, Nuclear, PVs, PHEVs, HEVs, Hydro, Geothermal, Tidal, and the real perpetual answer Fusion, are becoming more economic; take your pick.

Eco-Apocalypse is only possible if this process were to go on for several hundred years or more likely several Millennia. And it won't continue for even several more decades, in the natural course of events. Consider:

Conversion of ground transport to PHEVs alone, would lead to a falling atmospheric CO2 level in but a few years after comprehensive adoption. The adoption of this potentially cheaper mode of ground transport would reduce CO2 emissions by 70-85%. Don't forget the annual atmospheric exchange of CO2 is massive, fully 40+% annually, so the change would be seen quickly. Toyota and GM have announced 2009 model year PHEVs. Investments have been made, and the factory infrastructure to build these vehicles are being constructed as we write.

Meanwhile the CO2 promotes plant growth and feeds the planet. If atmospheric CO2 were pernicious to plant growth as some maintain, greenhouse plant nurseries would not pay good money to inject CO2 into their greenhouses. They do, so I take that as evidence that there is an advantage. Coincidentally, North America has been substantially re-forested, already due to the tremendous efficiency gains in agriculture, from the last half century's "Green Revolution".

The Earth is fully capable of supporting a population of 12 billions. With all living at the lifestyle of today's western millionaire or King's of old. And it will before the next century arrives.

[Ronald Brak]

Natural-philosopher, how warmer is the earth due to the greenhouse effect, including all greenhouse gases and not just anthropogenic additions?
About how much of this warming is due to CO2?

[korjik]

The title to this thread is 'some solutions to global warming' This implies that to stay on topic, global warming must be assumed to exist. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways to solve GW, not to discuss wether GW exists.

On to the topic at hand.....

I would be very against adding more pollutants to the atmo to reduce warming. That seems to me to be like pouring on gasoline to put out a fire. It'll work, but doent do quite what you want.

I would go with more natural biological methods. Increasing plant growth, then sequestering the carbon involved appeals more to me, If for no other reason than forests are nice More plankton growth is prolly more efficient tho.

I would be dead set against government controls on production. I dont mean to be political, but I see mandating maximum usage to just be the top of a slippery slope. You must use less gas... you must use less elec... you must live here.... you must work here....

[snarkophilus]

Is there evidence that CO2 doesn't asorb specific frequencies of infrared radiation?

If so, then I totally misinterpreted that gigantic absorption peak in my second year organic lab.

Here's an interesting question, though, which I hope someone can answer for me. CO2 absorbs IR pretty strongly. I mean, really strongly. The optical depth has to be pretty darn small. So, is there enough CO2 on Earth to absorb all of the IR entering the atmosphere? I think probably, and if so, then increasing CO2 concentration shouldn't have any effect in terms of incoming radiation. If that's the case, then is there another mechanism by which increased CO2 heats the planet? Maybe (weakly) recapturing some other emission lines from the surface? (H2O emissions from the oceans, for instance?)

Because there's little point in proposing solutions when we don't know exactly what the root of the problem is. It's all well and good to say that CO2 causes warming if there's empirical evidence for it, but if we know the theoretical basis, we can come up with much better fixes.

[korjik]

If so, then I totally misinterpreted that gigantic absorption peak in my second year organic lab.

Here's an interesting question, though, which I hope someone can answer for me. CO2 absorbs IR pretty strongly. I mean, really strongly. The optical depth has to be pretty darn small. So, is there enough CO2 on Earth to absorb all of the IR entering the atmosphere? I think probably, and if so, then increasing CO2 concentration shouldn't have any effect in terms of incoming radiation. If that's the case, then is there another mechanism by which increased CO2 heats the planet? Maybe (weakly) recapturing some other emission lines from the surface? (H2O emissions from the oceans, for instance?)

Because there's little point in proposing solutions when we don't know exactly what the root of the problem is. It's all well and good to say that CO2 causes warming if there's empirical evidence for it, but if we know the theoretical basis, we can come up with much better fixes.

Greenhouse effect is when visible light enters the atmo, hits the ground, and is reradiated as IR, which is then stuck in the atmo. The IR inflow would be blocked, but IIRC, visible light is a higher energy flux, so the reflected visible light gives a greater heat increase than the incoming IR lost space.

The reason I mentioned staying on topic is that the moderators are getting tired of having all GW threads becoming a 'yes it is' 'no it isnt' discussion. There is no reason we cant assume global warming is true for the reason of this thread. Any discussion we have here may have no relation to what happens in reality, but so what? we can still kick around ideas.