Climate Koch up.

[Seth]

it's at worst "take the next 25 years to carefully examine the issue, gather reliable and credible data, and make rational, reasonable affordable and universal plans to cut CO2 emissions that won't bankrupt industry and destroy entire economies in the process, and then make the prime contributors to CO2 emissions who HAVE NOT cut emissions as much as the United States has do so before asking the US to cut any more. Oh, and also, don't allow any third-world nation to begin or increase THEIR CO2 emissions based on some spurious argument that they are "entitled" to pollute the atmosphere just because developed countries have done so in the past.

Up to a point, there is some sense here. However, I would like to add a couple of things.
Basically, we do not have to wait 25 years to make a start. There are things that can be done now, which will help a great deal, which will not harm our way of life.

For example :

1. Replace coal burning power stations with nuclear, wind and solar cell. We now have access to Generation IV technology in nuclear power which does not have the safety concerns of older technology, and which produces a lot less nuclear waste.

Yup, that's the only thing we have that will do the job in the foreseeable future.

2. Plant a hell of a lot more forest. We need to replant at twice the rate of deforestation, and this can be done easily without significant negative economic problems.

Yup, agree.

3. Change the way we farm, so that the organic content of soils increases, rather than gets used up. We know how to do this today (eg. no till methods, and terra preta), and it has the extra benefit of improving soils and improving future harvests.

Not likely to work because all that keeps the world fed today is the increased crop yields provided by modern agricultural practices.

I agree that we need to develop newer and better methods. Some of these developments will take 25 years. Some will take a lot less time (eg superior electric cars, superior and cheaper photo voltaic cells, and practical thorium nuclear power stations).

The problem with "electric cars" is that it simply shifts the pollution production from a dispersed source to a point source, plus it costs a tremendous amount of money to improve both the power delivery grid and the generation facilities to provide the energy as electricity that's replacing the energy provided by gas and diesel. Worse, "electric cars" are inherently LESS efficient at turning fossil fuels (coal and natural gas...the only viable electrical generating fuels available for the next 25 years at least) into motive energy. This is due to the inherent losses in generating, transmitting and storing electricity versus the energy density content of refined motor fuels, which at the moment are the most efficient storage, transportation and delivery media for motor vehicle fuel that exists.

CNG has potential as a motor fuel, but it's slightly less than half as energy-dense as gasoline, which means that either vehicle storage capacity has to be increased to provide range equivalent to gasoline, or the density of the refueling delivery system, which right now is based on a 250 mile range average for gasoline, must be increased, which is a massive capital outlay in building gas delivery networks and fueling stations.

While hybrid vehicles are much more efficient on a gallon-per-mile basis than straight gasoline powered vehicles, and I strongly approve of the move to increase the number of hybrid vehicles on the highways, in terms of critical infrastructure it's not the individual car that's the critical path, it's the trucking industry, and nobody's come up with an engine more efficient than today's diesel engines for hauling 60,000 pounds of cargo long distances EXCEPT rail freight.

The problem with rail freight is, of course, the extremely limited railroad network, as compared to the highway network, and the enormous capital costs (not to mention environmental costs) of expanding the rail network so that it can effectively compete with the trucking industry.

As it stands, shippers use the most economically, and therefore the most reasonable methods of shipping specific goods, and the vast majority of goods travel by semi-truck at some point in their delivery path. Rare are the commodities that travel from producer to end user entirely by rail, with coal delivery to power plants being the foremost among those commodities.

And, no matter what happens, the current motor vehicle fleet using gas and diesel will remain in service for at least the next 25 years, and perhaps the next 100 or more years due to the capital costs of replacing the fleet (private and commercial) with new technology. It's not economically possible to simply ban diesel trucks in favor of some newfangled hybrid hauler because of the sunk costs and capital outlay of companies who have invested in fleets of diesel trucks which they expect to use long enough to pay back the capital investment.

So, once again we're talking about at least 25 years before any significant changes in energy production and delivery could possibly have an effect on CO2 emissions. We're stuck with the system we have for a long time yet, so it doesn't make any sense to cripple the economy trying to meet unrealistic and impossible emissions standards just because some envirowhackos are in a panic about climate change.

Accurately calculating the effects of the status quo (with gradual changes as technology improves) over the next 100 years or so and then accepting the climate consequences of what is bound to occur no matter how much we might want to change things and adapting society to the new climate paradigm by, for example, spending the next 100 years moving people and infrastructure out of danger zones, is FAR more important than knee-jerk hysteria and short-term "answers" that do nothing but burden the economy without effecting any real change. The two efforts, adaptation and CO2 control can occur simultaneously, but the focus needs to be on a realistic analysis of what WILL be occurring and a plan to adapt to that future, with the control efforts being designed to take place at an affordable and reasonable pace consistent with ongoing economic prosperity.

On third world nations.
The main 'culprit' is China, which is burning more and more coal for energy. We cannot force China to change, without a third world war, which would do far more harm than good. However, the leaders in China are well aware of the problem, and will make changes as and when it is expedient to do so. Developing low emission technology which China can use will help. China is already working on the problem. It is, for example, engaged in a major forest planting program.

So why should the United States (or any other country) agree to economically disadvantage themselves by imposing arbitrary and unreasonable carbon controls while the major polluter on earth thumbs its nose at the problem and laughs as our economy is crippled while theirs grows exponentially?

On the 80 metres sea level rise - that is, as I said, an extremely unlikely result. But I wanted to show the uncertainties in sea level rise and I listed the least possible, and the greatest possible rises. Reality will probably be somewhere in between, probably in the 1 to 10 metre region, though only time will tell. Early action will help to keep the rise as small as possible.

It's best to first engage in replanning society to adapt to the maximum possible sea level rise and engage in a generational relocation of people and infrastructure out of hazard zones over a long period, which minimizes the economic impacts of doing so. Once completed, that plan permanently removes the sea level as a major threat to society.

For example, laws could be passed to prohibit ANY new construction or reconstruction in a flood plain calculated to cover the maximum possible sea level rise if all ice on earth melts. Assuming your figure is correct, that would result in a contraction of cities, towns and industry away from coastlines and vertically at least 100 meters or more (providing a safety margin for storm surge), over a long, multi-generational period of time. People could continue to use their property in the hazard zone for as long as they like, but no reconstruction or rebuilding would be allowed as buildings age and are up for demolition. Once a particular structure has reached the end of its useful life, it would be demolished and the land would be restricted to non-critical non-industrial and non-residential uses such as open space and agriculture in perpetuity.

Adapting to something that's going to happen in the long term makes far more sense than trying to stop something that cannot be stopped in the short term.

That's why I say there is no climate change emergency, and that all the hysterics are just political positioning and control, not a realistic approach to adapting to change that's bound to occur at some point.

[Blind groper]

Not likely to work because all that keeps the world fed today is the increased crop yields provided by modern agricultural practices.

Possibly a slight misunderstanding here?
I suggested no till and terrapreta. I did not suggest organic. Organic will reduce yields, but the modern approaches of no till and terra preta actually increase yields, while tying up a lot more carbon in the soils. There was a calculation made some years back (sorry, I lost the reference) that showed if all the potentially arable land on earth received 2 mm more thickness in the soil in the form of humus, that would tie up 100 years worth of CO2 emissions. That would be a very optimistic goal, of course. But any increase in carbon content of soils will help. Possibly help a great deal.

Worse, "electric cars" are inherently LESS efficient at turning fossil fuels (coal and natural gas...the only viable electrical generating fuels available for the next 25 years at least) into motive energy.

Actually, not correct. I read an article on electric vehicles a while back. The author stated that electric vehicles, in terms of tonne/kilometers travelled, even when using electricity from coal burning power plants, caused less carbon emission than a petrol car. Of course, a full and complete 'solution' requires a combination such as electric vehicles plus nuclear power.

On trucks.
No immediate solution here. This is a carbon emitter that will continue to emit carbon until we have a viable alternative, such as biodiesel from algae. Maybe in 25 years.

I think that ocean going ships can be prevented from emitting carbon. Generation IV nuclear power can readily to adapted for ship's propulsion, even with limited skills in those who tend the power plant. This would take another 10 years of development.

So why should the United States (or any other country) agree to economically disadvantage themselves by imposing arbitrary and unreasonable carbon controls while the major polluter on earth thumbs its nose at the problem and laughs as our economy is crippled while theirs grows exponentially?

Hate to have to tell you this, Seth, but China is already doing far more than the USA in finding low carbon emitting methods. They are heavily into both research and implementation of non greenhouse gas processes. The problem is that they are growing so quickly, economically, that their innovations cannot keep up.

On sea level rise.
The maximum likely sea level rise is about 10 metres, and may be a lot less. The 80 metre rise is only if all the ice in Antarctica melts, which is seriously, and I do mean seriously, unlikely. I think to plan for something in the region of 5 to 10 metres, will be sufficient.

The rational compromise is to plan for (say) a 5 metre sea level rise, while implementing an energetic program of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[mistermack]

My own pet project, in the unlikely event of a serious amount of global warming, is seeding the oceans with nutrients from the ocean beds.

As the oceans cover seventy percent of the surface or the planet, most of the warming must come from solar energy hitting the water. If you pump up the nutrients from the seabed, you enable photosynthesis which traps the solar energy, and the plankton can use it to fix carbon out of the water. So instead of sunlight just heating up the ocean, you'r fixing carbon and producing huge volumes of food-fish.

There is every chance that it would be self-financing because of the value of fish produced.

[Seth]

My own pet project, in the unlikely event of a serious amount of global warming, is seeding the oceans with nutrients from the ocean beds.

As the oceans cover seventy percent of the surface or the planet, most of the warming must come from solar energy hitting the water. If you pump up the nutrients from the seabed, you enable photosynthesis which traps the solar energy, and the plankton can use it to fix carbon out of the water. So instead of sunlight just heating up the ocean, you'r fixing carbon and producing huge volumes of food-fish.

There is every chance that it would be self-financing because of the value of fish produced.

I recall some scheme to dump iron into the oceans to increase carbon fixation, but I forget the details.

[Jason]

Why didn't they go with the plan to put billions of mirrors in orbit?

[Seth]

Why didn't they go with the plan to put billions of mirrors in orbit?

We don't need mirrors, we need a sunshade, but in answer to your question, the gravity well is too deep on earth, you'd have to do the manufacturing on the moon or in orbit, using asteroids for raw materials.

[Jason]

How about gigantic photovoltaic cell arrays that collect energy and poop out batteries that fall to earth which we can then use to power our cars?

[JimC]

My own pet project, in the unlikely event of a serious amount of global warming, is seeding the oceans with nutrients from the ocean beds.

As the oceans cover seventy percent of the surface or the planet, most of the warming must come from solar energy hitting the water. If you pump up the nutrients from the seabed, you enable photosynthesis which traps the solar energy, and the plankton can use it to fix carbon out of the water. So instead of sunlight just heating up the ocean, you'r fixing carbon and producing huge volumes of food-fish.

There is every chance that it would be self-financing because of the value of fish produced.

I recall some scheme to dump iron into the oceans to increase carbon fixation, but I forget the details.

Yes. For many phytoplankton, iron is the limiting nutrient rather than the nitrates or phosphates you might expect.

Research is continuing, but actually doing it is controversial among oceanographers.

[Clinton Huxley]

My own pet project, in the unlikely event of a serious amount of global warming, is seeding the oceans with nutrients from the ocean beds.

As the oceans cover seventy percent of the surface or the planet, most of the warming must come from solar energy hitting the water. If you pump up the nutrients from the seabed, you enable photosynthesis which traps the solar energy, and the plankton can use it to fix carbon out of the water. So instead of sunlight just heating up the ocean, you'r fixing carbon and producing huge volumes of food-fish.

There is every chance that it would be self-financing because of the value of fish produced.

I recall some scheme to dump iron into the oceans to increase carbon fixation, but I forget the details.

Yes. For many phytoplankton, iron is the limiting nutrient rather than the nitrates or phosphates you might expect.

Research is continuing, but actually doing it is controversial among oceanographers.

Hmmm. You used to be able to make an old tv work by giving it a good thump. It probably wasn't doing much good in the long run. I'm suspicious of this kind of solution.

[pErvinalia]

As you should be. Of all geo-engineering solutions. We need to be damn sure we know what we are doing before we engineer global scale changes to the biosphere.

[Blind groper]

Adding iron to sea water does stimulate phytoplankton growth. That much has been proved. The problem lies with the fact that we do not know how much of that growth translates into carbon sequestered. The theory is that a portion of the extra phytoplankton will sink to the ocean floor and remain there as high carbon sediment, thus tying up carbon. However, no one yet knows if this happens, and if so, how much carbon remains sequestered. It may be that the entire phytoplankton bloom will be rapidly converted back into CO2.

There are ideas surrounding this process which suggest that dust in the air carries iron into the ocean, and has this effect. In a time of glaciation, land becomes dry and dust blows into the sea, which reduces CO2 in the air. But that may be so much academic crap.

[Seth]

How about gigantic photovoltaic cell arrays that collect energy and poop out batteries that fall to earth which we can then use to power our cars?

Possible, if moon-based automated mining and manufacturing can be built. I doubt it would be economically feasible though. There were some science-fiction speculations that orbital solar arrays could use high-energy microwaves to transmit power to the surface, where it would be converted to grid electricity, but such a beam would fry any living creature it came in contact with...like birds...and the losses in efficiency would be enormous.

One potential idea is to create a "space grid" which uses a cable made of high-strength materials with superconductors inside to transmit power from a geostationary solar array 22,500 miles out in orbit to the surface. But again, the technology to make such a tether does not currently exist.

[Jason]

I think any geoengineering solution must be easily removable. Adding iron to the oceans, putting particles in the atmosphere, etc., are all monumentally arrogant and have a great potential for completely fucking the climate.

[Blind groper]

have a great potential for completely fucking the climate.

I agree.

The main geoengineering suggestion for cooling the planet is to squirt vast amounts of sulfate into the upper atmosphere. However, some damn spoil sport researcher discovered that it increases the albedo of the planet and thus reduces light reaching plants for photosynthesis.

No one quite knows how much impact this would have ........

[Seth]

I think any geoengineering solution must be easily removable. Adding iron to the oceans, putting particles in the atmosphere, etc., are a
monumentally arrogant and have a great potential for completely fucking the climate.

Ahhhhhh! Global warming, Venus-like conditions, death, destruction, apocalypse!



Ahhhhhh! Global cooling, ice age, death, destruction, apocalypse!



Fucking adapt or die.