Support NeoGAF

[impetuous_silly]

I think more emphasis needs to be put on how we should prepare ourselves and our future generations for the changes that will effect us than trying to cause prevention. At any rate, things will start to get pretty uncomfortable, and getting angry or sad won't do anything to fix it.

 

[impetuous_silly]

My air conditioner broke today, so I am more concerned about local warming today.

As far as global warming is concerned, we are headed into dangerous waters. We may have already passed the point of no return. I don't suspect we will end up like Venus over this, We still don't know how the Earth's climate will respond over the long term to a short term (I hope) massive influx of carbon into the carbon cycle. Already we are seeing the effects of global warming. I imagine if we stop using fossil fuels over the next ten years we will still have a rough ride over the next 100 (or thousand). Eventually though the carbon released through the burning of fossil fuels will balance out. Life is hardy, and is a powerful stabilizing agent on our atmosphere. Humans are adaptable, we will probably survive well enough.

We may see billions die in our lifetime, thousands of species go extinct, and completely new coastlines but I don't think it will come to that.

I know it is hypocritical that I am complaining about not having air conditioning when it is contributing to the problem, but it is almost 90 degrees in my place and I don't care much about hypocrisy at this point.

I presume you're talking about the collective lifetime of the human race because what you described is still going to take a loooooooonnnnnggggggg time.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I think more emphasis needs to be put on how we should prepare ourselves and our future generations for the changes that will effect us than trying to cause prevention. At any rate, things will start to get pretty uncomfortable, and getting angry or sad won't do anything to fix it.

Well. Actually trying to fix it might help us fix it.

I presume you're talking about the collective lifetime of the human race because what you described is still going to take a loooooooonnnnnggggggg time.

How fast do you plan on dying? 50 years is a plausible timeframe for that list.

 

[Zaphod]

Maybe it will start rising again? I'm looking at just the data, not any graphs with an agenda taken from a blog.

From your previous link, the graph supports the upward trend of climate change, even over the last decade. The hottest El Nino year was the last one on record in 2010 and the La Nina average after that looks to be near the highest as well.

I'm not sure how dropping the word 'agenda' is supposed mean anything. The mass amount of data indicates that the temperature is rising.

 

[GungHo]

I think there are a lot of little things we could do that may cause some short-term pain, like having everyone solar-up their roofs or installing those solar road panels, but that may pay off pretty well in the end. I don't know how we pay for that, though.

I also think the environmental geeks are going to have to make a decision between "do we let Texas, Oklahoma, and the rest of the Plains states build a fuckton of wind farms or do we save birds." Because, cooking the goddam planet is going to kill a lot more goddamn birds than the turbines.

 

[JCX]

I'm excited for the gaf threads in 20 years about how "Millennials fucked up the environment" in the same tone of today's "Boomers fucked up the economy" threads.

 

[M3d10n]

What do you think about the idea that some scientists have had about trying to put the oceans on "steroids?".

The census is that the Algae and Plankton eats up 50% of humans CO2 footprint. That means, if we could put something in our oceans to make much more plankton and algae, they believe the oceans could eat up even more of our CO2 emissions.


Personally this line of thinking sounds like the beginning of those water-world type movies. If you want real-life Godzilla this is how you get them.


But then again.. Plankton and Algae are good for many things in the oceans?

One of the many mass extinctions on Earth is theorized to have being caused by a massive proliferation of a algae, which decreased the oceans' oxygen levels.

 

[happypup]

I'm excited for the gaf threads in 20 years about how "Millennials fucked up the environment" in the same tone of today's "Boomers fucked up the economy" threads.

Can't really blame them. The problem started in the 19th century and has been known to science for decades (though perhaps not the extent of the influence). We can no more blame them than ourselves, but blaming is counterproductive anyways so I hope we get past it and work on a solution instead.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I'm excited for the gaf threads in 20 years about how "Millennials fucked up the environment" in the same tone of today's "Boomers fucked up the economy" threads.

It's been a tag team effort

 

[Famassu]

Based on evidence I've read, climate change is very real, but human impact is overblown. I believe reducing emissions, planting trees, and reducing overall pollution is important for many valid reasons - but I don't think any law will ever stop global change.

I've yet to read a single study that would have found any kind of other reason for (such rapid) climate change other than what we humans are doing (and the chain reactions that has created). All the alternative theories about sunspot activity changes, Earth's position in relation to the sun and others have pretty much been debunked, AFAIK.

Plankton and Algae are good for many things in the oceans?

Not in excess

 

[LCGeek]

Being an american that grew up in the midwest, west, and parts of the south I'm appalled most don't feel it's legit issue when we have been seeing the effects amp up the last decade big time. I'm rather ticked at how politicians and some in business frame this issue for the sake of profits or the bottom line.

 

[theepicoftyler]

What do you think about the idea that some scientists have had about trying to put the oceans on "steroids?".

The census is that the Algae and Plankton eats up 50% of humans CO2 footprint. That means, if we could put something in our oceans to make much more plankton and algae, they believe the oceans could eat up even more of our CO2 emissions.


Personally this line of thinking sounds like the beginning of those water-world type movies. If you want real-life Godzilla this is how you get them.


But then again.. Plankton and Algae are good for many things in the oceans?

I think you're playing with fire when you're attempting geo-engineering. In my eyes, that should be an absolute last resort.

If you think about it, we're in the situation we're in right now because we couldn't see the consequences of our actions. Not because we were choosing to ignore them, but simply because we didn't know any better. There wasn't any science at the time to say "hey, wait a minute guys...".

If we start any type of geo-engineering project, I think there are just way too many variables in the natural world to be able to count for every possible negative side-effect. The system is too complex to be able to do one thing and count on it doing exactly what you want it to do and nothing else.

Also, geo-engineering typically treats the symptoms and ignores the causes. For example, observations of climate change were obfuscated during the 70's - 80's due to aerosol pollutants that we had not yet banned raising the albedo of the planet. CO2 was building in the atmosphere while less sunlight was reaching the planet. It didn't stop global warming, it just masked it. Similar to what happens during massive volcanic eruptions. (Don't quote me on any of those details, I haven't read any of that literature in a very long time)

It's a dangerous road to go down IMO.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I've yet to read a single study that would have found any kind of other reason for (such rapid) climate change other than what we humans are doing (and the chain reactions that has created). All the alternative theories have pretty much been debunked, AFAIK.

You are correct.

The greenhouse effect is the only measurable source of our current warming. We (humans) are responsible for a massive increase in the greenhouse gases of our atmosphere.

Those who deny that global warming/clmate chsnge is caused by humans should read up on the history of leaded gasoline. Or watch the recent cosmos episode on it.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I think you're playing with fire when you're attempting geo-engineering. In my eyes, that should be an absolute last resort.

(Snip)

If we start any type of geo-engineering project, I think there are just way too many variables in the natural world to be able to count for every possible negative side-effect. The system is too complex to be able to do one thing and count on it doing exactly what you want it to do and nothing else.

Also, geo-engineering typically treats the symptoms and ignores the causes.

(Snip)

It's a dangerous road to go down IMO.

You're right. However, we're already at the point where the last resort is needed.

CO2 sequestration is the path forward. That's the form our geoengineering will take. And it *will* happen, hopefully soon enough to save lives.

But it won't happen for decades, even if we get our act together tomorrow. And it'll require being carbon neutral to be viable to begin with, which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon...

 

[orion434]

From your previous link, the graph supports the upward trend of climate change, even over the last decade. The hottest El Nino year was the last one on record in 2010 and the La Nina average after that looks to be near the highest as well.

I'm not sure how dropping the word 'agenda' is supposed mean anything. The mass amount of data indicates that the temperature is rising.

That graph is from NASA, I'm just analyzing the data. I haven't been wrong in any observation of the data collected.

 

[Herbspiceguy]

Indifferent

 

[Elfforkusu]

That graph is from NASA, I'm just analyzing the data. I haven't been wrong in any observation of the data collected.

How is your analysis superior to NASA's plot?

Bearing in mind that a graph is, literally, just the data.

 

[KHarvey16]

That graph is from NASA, I'm just analyzing the data. I haven't been wrong in any observation of the data collected.

I'll summarize your comments:

If it continues warming, which the trend in the global temperature as well as mountains upon mountains of other scientific evidence suggests, things will be bad. If it stops warming, which we have absolutely no reason to suspect and, again, every reason to actively reject, things will not be bad.

 

[boingball]

Basically: We are fucked.

I find it fascinating that the US is happy to waste billions of dollars on the war on terror(stating of course that it is not a waste) while fighting global warming is not worth a cent. More US Americans have died of global warming (more extreme weather occurrences) than of terrorism already (plus more US Americans have died by the war on terror than by the terrorism).

Well, I moved to New Zealand where the impact of Global Warming will be moderate. Increased temperatures are not an issue (whereas this is a huge problem for our neighbor Australia). More taifuns/hurricanes is not an issue either. Raising water levels are but NZ is not a flat country (this is more of a problem for our pacific neighbors).


Edit:
And to all the deniers. I find it pretty telling that the US Military and the NSA see global warming as a huge risk because of the increase of conflicts due to this. They have to look at facts and just denying that it occurs will not make it go away.
Same is true for insurance companies. There is not one insurance company in the world which thinks that global warming is not happening.

 

[Yoda]

One of out most serious problems if not most serious to date. However, I don't think we will stop it from happening. India and China will soon produce more CO2 emissions than the U.S. or all of Europe. Curbing CO2 in the short-term is usually bad for an economy and no one is going to want to "go first" especially the two countries I just listed who despite having ever growing GDP's still have a low per-capita GDP in contrast with the West.

 

[Evolved1]

I'm laying maps of projected sea level rise, over maps of the poorest counties of east coast states like Virginia and such. My plan is to buy a significant portion of cheap, fallow farmland projected to be oceanfront by the time I retire.

 

[TrAcEr_x90]

http://www.latimes.com/science/environment/la-sci-0513-antarctic-ice-sheet-20140513-story.html



Unless massive reservoirs are going to be built around coastlines, the world is going to look a lot different in a few (hundred) years.

is it really a few hundred years? I feel like it could be aloooot sooner than everyone thinks.

 

[Zaphod]

I haven't been wrong in any observation of the data collected.

It's not "Global Warming" anymore, it's Climate Change. The warming took a vacation over a decade ago. If the temp is expected to rise by 5 degrees C in a century... that's 1 every 20 years. Currently it's been oscillating at like +0.4 from the average established in 1979. I think in 1998 it hit +1.0 C.

When a 5-year average holds above +1.0 C then we've got a problem.

I'm not sure you have proved the oscillating at 0.4 but the most incorrect part is demanding an average 5 year increase of 1 degree Celsius. The first problem being which 5 year period do you pick from, I assume a rolling average would be somewhat fair but that could easily give misleading results compared to observing the longer trend. The second being that if the rate of greenhouse emissions is increasing yearly and or there is a feedback loop that will increase heat retention over time, it doesn't really matter if in the last 5 years the temperature only increased by less than one degree. If the longer term data and analysis of other factors show a high likelihood of a large temperature increase in the next 100 years I don't see how saying the last few years have been ok-ish is a solid scientific argument.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Will climate change cool off Vegas? If not, fuck you Climate Change!

 

[theepicoftyler]

You're right. However, we're already at the point where the last resort is needed.

CO2 sequestration is the path forward. That's the form our geoengineering will take. And it *will* happen, hopefully soon enough to save lives.

But it won't happen for decades, even if we get our act together tomorrow. And it'll require being carbon neutral to be viable to begin with, which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon...

Carbon sequestering isn't there yet. It's exactly what I'm talking about. The government agency I work for has been doing research on carbon sequestration for years, and we're still only at a point where we're doing limited field tests.

There's a lot of research still being done on the release rate of sequestered carbon. It's not a slam dunk.

I don't agree that we're at the last resort point yet. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree however. If the worst fears come to pass, we're still many years out, likely past most of our lifetimes. Those last resorts are for that time, I believe. Technology and regulation should be our focus at the moment.

 

[makingmusic476]

Aren't the latest projections estimating 7+ feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years, now that the West Antarctic ice sheet has begun a calving cycle?

For those saying "eh, 100 years is a long time!", only six inches of sea level rise in the next decade or two would royally fuck up cities like New Orleans, where I live. Rising sea levels will drastically effect storm surge during hurricanes.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Carbon sequestering isn't there yet. It's exactly what I'm talking about. The government agency I work for has been doing research on carbon sequestration for years, and we're still only at a point where we're doing limited field tests.

There's a lot of research still being done on the release rate of sequestered carbon. It's not a slam dunk.

I don't agree that we're at the last resort point yet. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree however. If the worst fears come to pass, we're still many years out, likely past most of our lifetimes. Those last resorts are for that time, I believe. Technology and regulation should be our focus at the moment.

Last resort has to do with the land glaciers in the Antarctic and Greenland. Once that party kicks into high gear, all hope of prevention is dead.

So... how close do you want to cut it? We're not going to find the tipping point until we're on the wrong side. That's why I say the sooner the better with carbon sequestration. Obviously we need to understand it before we do it, but IMO we are going to have to start doing it, and soon at that.

 

[orion434]

I'm not sure you have proved the oscillating at 0.4 but the most incorrect part is demanding an average 5 year increase of 1 degree Celsius. The first problem being which 5 year period do you pick from, I assume a rolling average would be somewhat fair but that could easily give misleading results compared to observing the longer trend. The second being that if the rate of greenhouse emissions is increasing yearly and or there is a feedback loop that will increase heat retention over time, it doesn't really matter if in the last 5 years the temperature only increased by less than one degree. If the longer term data and analysis of other factors show a high likelihood of a large temperature increase in the next 100 years I don't see how saying the last few years have been ok-ish is a solid scientific argument.

An average 5 year increase of 1 degree Celsius would be VERY bad, I believe you mean from the established average. Are you reading the graph correctly? I didn't pick or demand anything... there has not been a single year on record that the average global temperature for all 12 months has exceeded +1.0 C from the average established in 1979.

I am disregarding your "second" as I never mentioned any greenhouse gases so how can I be incorrect?

 

[theepicoftyler]

Last resort has to do with the land glaciers in the Antarctic and Greenland. Once that party kicks into high gear, all hope of prevention is dead.

So... how close do you want to cut it? We're not going to find the tipping point until we're on the wrong side. That's why I say the sooner the better with carbon sequestration. Obviously we need to understand it before we do it, but IMO we are going to have to start doing it, and soon at that.

I feel like we have a responsibility and obligation to attempt to mitigate the issues without becoming the programmer of how our world functions.

Geo-engineering leads to the possibility of sudden and cataclysmic changes. If the habitability of our planet becomes dependent on human influence, if there is some sort of breakdown in the future we end up in that situation. Carbon sequestration is on the low-risk side of that; but seeding the air with aerosols or fertilizing the oceans, or any of the other large scale geo-engineering concepts definitely fall under that umbrella.

In my mind there has to be absolute certainty in the cause and effects of any intentional actions taken to engineer our planet's atmosphere.

 

[speculawyer]

Carbon sequestering isn't there yet. It's exactly what I'm talking about. The government agency I work for has been doing research on carbon sequestration for years, and we're still only at a point where we're doing limited field tests.

There's a lot of research still being done on the release rate of sequestered carbon. It's not a slam dunk.

I don't see much promise in sequestration either. We burn the stuff to release the energy and it expands in the process. To sequester it, you'd have to compress it back to a small size and have a place to store it permanently. That takes a lot of energy and requires a large amount of space. Why not just not burn the stuff in the first place?

The best carbon sequestration process that we currently have is called "plant a tree".

 

[OldAsUrSock]

Worried as hell. what else should I be? Also impotent because the countries that are more responsible for it laugh and piss on us, or in the worst case, think it doesn't even exist

Except for the other etns of million of especies that will die. But it's not our problem. Oh wait, IT IS.

If species die because of the change then they did not adapt to the changes fast enough and should not be saved at all.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Very worried. I try to keep my greenhouse gas emissions as low as I possibly can.

I'm hoping the people with the resources to radically change the situation wake up pretty soon and realize the extinction event in store if we sit idly by on the whole debacle.

 

[afternoon delight]

I don't think even extreme weather will convince the skeptics until its too late for harm that will last generations.

And I seriously consider the idea that it will all end in fucking horror.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I feel like we have a responsibility and obligation to attempt to mitigate the issues without becoming the programmer of how our world functions.

Geo-engineering leads to the possibility of sudden and cataclysmic changes. If the habitability of our planet becomes dependent on human influence, if there is some sort of breakdown in the future we end up in that situation. Carbon sequestration is on the low-risk side of that; but seeding the air with aerosols or fertilizing the oceans, or any of the other large scale geo-engineering concepts definitely fall under that umbrella.

In my mind there has to be absolute certainty in the cause and effects of any intentional actions taken to engineer our planet's atmosphere.

I agree in principle. But I think reality suggests that prudence is a luxury we no longer have.

If species die because of the change then they did not adapt to the changes fast enough and should not be saved at all.

Especially if the species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

[speculawyer]

It's very real, but given how the "alternative" of choice seems to be impractical renewables that won't help at all, we're fucked.

This seems so defeatist to me. We can do this. It is just a matter of will. We are just lazy and greedy.

 

[Zaphod]

An average 5 year increase of 1 degree Celsius would be VERY bad, I believe you mean from the established average. Are you reading the graph correctly? I didn't pick or demand anything... there has not been a single year on record that the average global temperature for all 12 months has exceeded +1.0 C from the average established in 1979.

I am disregarding your "second" as I never mentioned any greenhouse gases so how can I be incorrect?

I'm not sure how you can ignore greenhouse gasses when talking about climate change. Yes you are correct that the overall increase so far is about 0.6 degrees since 1979, I'm just not sure how that proves that we shouldn't worry.

 

[Foffy]

I feel that we're like a bratty kid who's only going to learn by getting spanked. To put that in real world terms: most of the world seems ignorant in that the way we live is destructive and insoluble as a status quo, so it seems the only method we'd start taking this shit seriously is when we experience massive, catastrophic disaster. The fact nearly half of the people in the US are unsure if even the scientists have firm conclusions is telling. More Hurricane Sandy's will be required for people to really wake up and not call it "the weather" as horrifying as that sounds. I don't want it to be that way, but most people don't seem to care, for whatever the reason.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think even extreme weather will convince the skeptics until its too late for harm that will last generations.

And I seriously consider the idea that it will all end in fucking horror.

This may be very true. By the time we have a lot of agreement on doing something, it might be way too late by then. We may hit a point where even if were were to completely stop burning anything, all the greenhouse gases already emitted will continue melting the polar ice caps for decades to come. And feedback loops would keep heating things such as the reduced albedo, methane released from permafrost, methane hydrates melting, reduced sequestration from dying trees/plants, etc.

And the deniers would say "See? We stopped burning stuff and it is continuing to melt anyway!"

 

[Elfforkusu]

I don't see much promise in sequestration either. We burn the stuff to release the energy and it expands in the process. To sequester it, you'd have to compress it back to a small size and have a place to store it permanently. That takes a lot of energy and requires a large amount of space. Why not just not burn the stuff in the first place?

The best carbon sequestration process that we currently have is called "plant a tree".

We already seem to be overbudget on CO2. We'll need to become a "co2 negative" species to fix it. That means sequestration.

There are options. Photosynthesis is a good bet, if we figure it out fast enough. Pouring lime into the oceans is a known way to pull CO2 out of the air (due to the acid chain reaction).

There's not a safe way to do it right now. There's not even a viable way. But we can't afford to go through another denial cycle on this as well. Cutting emissions alone cannot get us out of this mess. It's just the only short term thing we can do.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

severely depressed.

 

[diggmcbadass]

Shit is going to get fucked up. I have lived in a economically and environmentally stable place all my life so I have no idea how to process that information, though. My long term plan is to become the blaster part of a masterblaster type configuration. The Thunderdome should keep me financially stable.

 

[Zaptruder]

We already seem to be overbudget on CO2. We'll need to become a "co2 negative" species to fix it. That means sequestration.

There are options. Photosynthesis is a good bet, if we figure it out fast enough. Pouring lime into the oceans is a known way to pull CO2 out of the air (due to the acid chain reaction).

There's not a safe way to do it right now. There's not even a viable way. But we can't afford to go through another denial cycle on this as well. Cutting emissions alone cannot get us out of this mess. It's just the only short term thing we can do.

Generally sequestration technology refers to grounding existing output sources of carbon.

i.e. sticking mufflers on coal plants.

But really, carbon capture and sequestration is a misleading obfuscatory dead end path of technology that is likely to send is into a sandpit of hell if we listen to coal advocates on it. Its use and addition basically nullifies the primary advantage of coal - the social/political/economic efficacy of getting coal power plants made. The cost per kilowatt hour for coal skyrockets, the cost for the plant skyrockets, and the sites available for sequestration are limited at best; you can't stick these things on all existing coal power plants.

It's very existence is more of a lie that we use to justify the continued building of new coal power plants to meet energy demands.

Those power plants are built predicated on lies; we will not be able to use them to their full capacity without destroying ourselves - they're economically unviable and in real terms, when factoring in their amortized costs based on how much carbon they can pump out before we tell them to fuck off, extremely expensive sources of power per kilowatt hour. Or we could continue to use them for energy - where in their externalities will cost more per kilowatt hour of energy used.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Generally sequestration technology refers to grounding existing output sources of carbon.

i.e. sticking mufflers on coal plants.

Well, wikipedia says:

Carbon sequestration is the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and may refer specifically to:

* "The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir." When carried out deliberately, this may also be referred to as carbon dioxide removal, which is a form of geoengineering.

* The process of carbon capture and storage, where carbon dioxide is removed from flue gases, such as on power stations, before being stored in underground reservoirs.

* Natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and reservoirs, such as by chemical weathering of rocks.

The 2nd matches your definition. I agree that it's nonsense for all the reasons you list. It's also not what I'm advocating/predicting. (mine is the 1st. Maybe we could enlist the 3rd...)

Coal plants should be phased out and killed off ASAP. There's no sensible way to get something carbon neutral when its whole purpose is to produce energy and CO2.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, wikipedia says:

The 2nd matches your definition. I agree that it's nonsense for all the reasons you list. It's also not what I'm advocating/predicting. (mine is the 1st. Maybe we could enlist the 3rd...)

Coal plants should be phased out and killed off ASAP. There's no sensible way to get something carbon neutral when its whole purpose is to produce energy and CO2.

It also happens to be the most common idea of sequestration.

Of course, I believe that we absolutely need to claw back the carbon that we've already pumped into the atmosphere... but the more applicable term for it right now is simply called - restoring and creating new carbon sinks. i.e. planting more trees.

In a few decades (of accelerating technological advancement), we may have figured out a way to trawl the skies and the oceans for carbon and green house gases. That'd be rather good - but it's not something we can do now... is it?

 

[Elfforkusu]

It also happens to be the most common idea of sequestration.

Well, I think you and me both know the idea of "sequestering" carbon as its coming out of a coal plant is bullshit, so we just need to get everybody else on board.

Of course, I believe that we absolutely need to claw back the carbon that we've already pumped into the atmosphere... but the more applicable term for it right now is simply called - restoring and creating new carbon sinks. i.e. planting more trees.

In a few decades (of accelerating technological advancement), we may have figured out a way to trawl the skies and the oceans for carbon and green house gases. That'd be rather good - but it's not something we can do now... is it?

Well... not really. It wouldn't be pretty for varying environmental reasons, and we really need better research before we go whole-hog geoengineering -- but we're gonna end up having to do it, so I like talking about it now.

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Basically, CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. The result is that the ocean water is more acidic...

... which means if you add a base (say, limestone) into the oceans on a vast scale, you reduce the acidity of the ocean, which in turn pulls more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Is a "vast scale" achievable economically? Will it even work for putting a dent in the CO2 ppm number? Who knows!

 

[Reuenthal]

Well, I think you and me both know the idea of "sequestering" carbon as its coming out of a coal plant is bullshit, so we just need to get everybody else on board.


Well... not really. It wouldn't be pretty for varying environmental reasons, and we really need better research before we go whole-hog geoengineering -- but we're gonna end up having to do it, so I like talking about it now.

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Basically, CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. The result is that the ocean water is more acidic...

... which means if you add a base (say, limestone) into the oceans on a vast scale, you reduce the acidity of the ocean, which in turn pulls more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Is a "vast scale" achievable economically? Will it even work for putting a dent in the CO2 ppm number? Who knows!

What about localized geoenginering? The polar regions are the ones in which global warming has its most significant effect, and also there are the risks of methane trapped in the ice. What if we use geoengineering not to change the temperature worldwide but the temperature on some of the polar regions? Can we do that? Just some silly ideas I am thinking about.

Stabilizing temperatures in Antartic regions give us less temperature increases and more breathing space for methane release and even sea rise. Which means if we are serious about fixing things by reducing CO2 in general we could do it with less risk and proceed with adjusting with less worrying about tipping point. Not something to reduce rate of adjutchment but consequences of global warming and risk. But the general atmosphere might be affected but maybe less so if the goal is the temperature at certain regions. (And maybe there are some less harmful ways to achieve that). That is supposing that local geoengineering can work and won't have significant negative results.

 

[Elfforkusu]

What about localized geoenginering? The polar regions are the ones in which global warming has its most significant effect, and also there are the risks of methane trapped in the ice. What if we use geoengineering not to change the temperature worldwide but the temperature on some of the polar regions? Can we do that? Just some silly ideas I am thinking about.

Stabilizing temperatures in Antartic regions give us less temperature increases and more breathing space for methane release and even sea rise. Which means if we are serious about fixing things by reducing CO2 in general we could do it with less risk and proceed with adjusting with less worrying about tipping point. Not something to reduce rate of adjutchment but consequences of global warming and risk. But the general atmosphere might be affected but maybe less so if the goal is the temperature at certain regions. (And maybe there are some less harmful ways to achieve that). That is supposing that local geoengineering can work and won't have significant negative results.

Well, ok... so, we know the earth's climate is a global system -- things we take for granted, like the trade winds and the jet stream, are just a product ("symptom") of the temperature gradient from the north pole to the equator and the earth's rotation.

So intuitively, local-scale geoengineering sounds completely insane. BUT! Perhaps just insane enough to work. It's a clever idea at least, the kind that merits a legit lab experiment or simulation just to see what happens. =)

 

[Ahasverus]

If species die because of the change then they did not adapt to the changes fast enough and should not be saved at all.

Well the especies will die because of the changes /we/ do, and don't bring the "natural selection" here, you know that whatever we're doing is totally not natural.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Can't we install some sort of carbon exhaust in space?

 

[Trey]

Truly, I wish we could split the planet proportionally between people that believed it was a problem and people that didn't believe it was a problem - and have them live out their global experiment independently (as another planet in and of itself)... and we could live out ours without their shit.

But that's not reality

Or, the more humane alternative, we convince the majority, put the right people in the right places, and get shit done.