And then try something, and see if it works.
We do not know all the variables. We do not know how each variable would influence each element of the system. We do not know how all the elements of the system interact.
We could make some very well-informed assumptions.
We could screw up royally.
Or, we could cut back on consumption.
Thank you. It seems we’ve had that thread a thousand times, and it’s refreshing to see a new type of thread.
That’s a really good question. And, like most really good questions, it has more than one answer.
One of the answers has to do with economics and incentives. Being someone who is not highly schooled in economics, I’ll give that one first and get my foot in my mouth – and out of the way - right up front. CO[sub]2[/sub] and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are motivated not by the impact they have on the atmosphere, but by the energy you get out of the reactions that generate them (i.e. you don’t drive an SUV to make your children’s climate warmer – you drive it to take those children to day care.) People get something tangible out of adding GHGs to the atmosphere. These reactions drive our cars, light our homes, and allow us to surf the Dope without a lot of string getting tangled between our tin cans. On the other hand, what do people get out of removing GHGs from the atmosphere? Not a lot. Just as considerable amounts of useful energy are released by the reactions that generate GHGs, considerable amounts of energy would have to be devoted to the removal of GHGs – and that energy can no longer be used for driving, lighting, etc. There are ways to make the burden easier (and more economically palatable.) Rather than pressurizing the CO[sub]2[/sub] and sequestering it in some geologically favorable place, we can try to use natural systems that already sequester CO[sub]2[/sub] to reduce (it’s important to note that they do not eliminate) the energy needed to take GHGs out of the atmosphere.
So you basically have 150 years of industrial civilization and millions/billions of people adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere without that addition as a primary goal. Mobilizing the resources to take all that out of the atmosphere as a primary goal, without some additional benefit, would be nearly impossible. I would feel safe betting money (and I’m not a betting person) that CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations in the atmosphere will not decrease due to human activity in my lifetime (I expect to live until at least 2050 
.) Reducing GHGs and thus turning down the ‘thermostat’ is a laudable goal, but hopelessly optimistic.
The second answer is a little bit closer to home in terms of my area of expertise.
Iron seeding really sounds like a fantastic idea: you dump iron (a limiting micronutrient for many types of marine phytoplankton) in the sea, let phytoplankton grow and reproduce, and in the process, do photosynthesis and sequester some carbon in their biomass. When they die, some percentage of the phytoplankton biomass will sink to the deep sea and be sequestered away from the atmosphere at geological time scales. It sounds great, which is why pundits and investors are excited about the idea even today.
Unfortunately, despite the rosy scenario flotillas of iron-dumping ships bring to mind, the reality of the task is sobering to a mind buzzed by pundit brew.
For years, it was easy to believe in these rosy scenarios because it is difficult to measure the amount of carbon that gets sequestered this way.
From: The effects of iron fertilization on carbon sequestration in the Southern Ocean. 2004. Science v. 304, p. 414-417.
Although we now can measure the flux of carbon given sufficient time:
Same source as above.
My back of the envelope calculations indicate that at an iron ore cost of about $196 per ton ([source](” http://www.econstats.com/rt_ironore.htm”),) we’re looking at a cost of about $1.60 per ton of carbon sequestered (assumes iron:iron ore ratio of 0.245 and 40% overhead in addition to raw materials costs.) That’s a very attractive number and exactly where I would love to see the price of carbon sequestration.
There are two drawbacks that I can see despite this encouraging calculation. Consider that the largest iron fertilization experiment to date seeded 1.26 tons of iron, and the amount that would be needed to mitigate just 25% of human carbon emissions every year would be about 2.27 million tons of iron. The ratio of actually accomplished experiment to implementation is 5.6x10[sup]-7[/sup]! This tells me that while the initial numbers are promising, iron fertilization is nowhere near reliable enough to bet billions of dollars on. To help illustrate my thinking on this, the Wright Brothers’ initial flight in 1903 reached an altitude of about 10 ft. Using a ratio of 5.6x10[sup]-7[/sup] the corresponding altitude would be about 3,400 miles, well into the Earth’s lower Van Allen belt. I don’t think it would have been a good bet in 1903 that the Wrights’ technology would have taken us to the Van Allen belt – we didn’t wind up getting there until the 1960s. This does not tell us that iron fertilization won’t work – I sincerely hope that it does. What it does tell us is that we are not ready to commit to iron fertilization as a technological fix.
The second drawback is what are the other effects of iron fertilization? (aside from scaling issues)
(From: Global iron connections between desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate. 2005. Science v. 308, p. 67-71.
If we know that the process sequesters carbon, but still don’t know which direction of feedback it produces, then I would say iron fertilization is not ready for billions in investment. Maybe after some more research, we will know, but we just don’t know right now. I’d hate for humanity’s time on the Earth to turn into a Winnie the Pooh story where trying to get our hand out of the honey jar causes more drama than the honey was worth in the first place.
I don’t know nearly as much about volcanic eruptions as about iron fertilization, but I’m not sure – has triggering eruptions even gotten to the field experimental stage?
Another idea that sounds great in theory is the idea of launching a solar shade into Earth orbit. I’m a little skeptical of this one based on the cost of launching anything into Earth orbit. Maybe Stranger on a Train or some other rocket scientist could let us know what they think about the feasibility of that.
Just as you are, I would be completely baffled if I ever encountered anyone who expressed this sentiment. I think I’m pretty well-informed on global climate change issues for a layman, but I have never met anyone who expresses this idea. I really don’t think they’re very common (but I’m willing to be corrected if you can provide lots of examples 
)
Perhaps the best well-publicized plan for dealing with climate change that I have seen is expressed in this 2006 article (warning: PDF) from Scientific American. Here are the wedges they recommend (I’ve bolded the ones I see as technological solutions per the OP):
*I actually think hydrogen fuel for cars is a bit of a mug’s game, so I’m not in agreement here.
**This ethanol should likely not be made from corn.
To summarize, I would say that technological solutions are great, but we need to do everything we can now, with technology we have, and not wait for the future to save us. It’s up to us to make the future. Technology is part of that future, and we will use it – any Neo-Luddites out there are irrelevant. Starting now will save our next generation from a lot of tough choices so they can have the luxury of deciding whether to implement the far-off technologies the OP envisions.
They use techniques of propaganda to evoke emotional response from you in an attempt to detach you from your sane and rational thought process.
This is 21st century Marxism!
A direct solution would require participation of ‘bad’ capitalists.
The environmentalist groups, lawyers, democrat party and Al Gore won’t make any money if a speedy solution were obtained. Al Gore wouldn’t be able to skim brokerage fees from his cap and trade political non-science if the problem was dealt with directly.
It would be an easy matter to promote and subsidize solar thermal electrical generating plants just like was done in the '60s with nuclear power generation. But it is not about the accomplishment of a goal (capitalism) it is all about the process (socialism)
“Them” who?
Can we have some links to websites of organizations who espouse the positions you mention?
Because attempting to lower the temperature would be fucking stupid as someone with chronic alcoholism not getting help because he heard some day science will be able to grow new livers.
Yea the withdrawal of oil addiction might be nasty but once you’re off it you’re off it. You don’t have to play havoc on the ocean’s ecosystem with algea blooms, you don’t have to blot out the sun with some weird umbrella, you don’t have to ruin the ozone with spraying gunk in the atmosphere, or people’s health with volcanic eruptions.
Let’s look at the space umbrella.
How much light would have to remove the biosphear to cool the earth? How would that affect food production? Would people starve so someone can drive a gasoline SUV to compensate for their micropenis? How many plants and animals would it drive extinct? How would it effect climate? How much of GDP would it cost to get the thing up there? How much to maintain it? You’re looking at massive taxes to pay for it. Then thing would have to be huge to handle enough energy to lower the Earth’s temp, or made of magic Wouldn’t it be cheaper for everyone to work towards not needing oil?
To hide the truth, of course, that they can’t fix.
Slightly over half of the total emission is due to human activity like food and waste and the other half is due to natural processes like wet lands.
Doom is eminent! Life’s a bitch and then you die!
As usual, this sort of discussion is off to a shaky start with the demonization of any disagreement (Crypto-religion, etc.) I see a lot of tossed-off comments these days that the other side must be stupid, evil, or otherwise ineligible to participate. This is becoming very common on the SDMB – anyone who disagrees with that is clearly a fool and a bounder.
My take on why some people are against giant-scale technofixes is that they’ve experienced a lot of macrotechnology, seen how prone to error we can be, and they recognize that dangerous side effects and outright errors in these huge-scale projects will have huge-scale consequences. Pilot projects will not always scale up prdictably, and furthermore, may take too long to get the macrotech in place in time.
Frankly I think it’ll take BOTH conservation/reduction/change of habits AND macrotech like sequestration. That makes me adamantly against macrotech when used as a dodge to avoid changing habits – which is how most folks seem to use it.
We cannot change the world economic base? We can’t do things differently? Piffle. Tell that to the farriers, the armorers, and the slave-traders, among others. We’ve changed the way the world runs before and we can do it again.
Sailboat
Well, I’m honestly a bit skeptical about the solutions in the OP myself (there is a show on, IIRC, Discovery, where they try out techniques to change the climate…reflectors of sunlight and more cloud cover and such). I’m a bit uneasy about trying things so drastic…especially if it turns out that GW is being driven as much by fluctuation in sunlight as by CO2. We’d put up our handy dandy sun shield just in time for the sun to go into a less energetic phase and wind up with another ice age (which would be worse than GW).
That said, I know exactly what the OP is referring to. Think of it in terms of nuclear energy. If people REALLY think that CO2 is such a big deal you’d think that everyone would be jumping on the nuclear energy bandwagon (no CO2 emissions). Instead a lot of the most frantic GW gloom and doomers are completely opposed to nuclear power as a stop gap solution. Instead (at least in my experience) they go on about wind and solar…as if those technologies aren’t decades from being able to replace coal, even with a massive effort. And of course they go on about how all we really need to do is change our entire lifestyle, as if this would be do-able as well in the short term.
I think that a lot of neo-Luddite types have latched onto GW/AGW as a way to push through what they see as an anti-technology agenda. And I think that this aspect is what a lot of AGW skeptics are reacting to…to the agenda that lies beneath the surface of the current debate, because frankly those of us who are a bit older have been hearing this stuff long before GW hit the radar of most Americans. The names have changed, but the agenda has stayed the same.
-XT
I agree 100%. Actually my post was intended to be a bit ironic. The fact is that it would be difficult to confidently predict the consequences of adding some antidote gas to the atmosphere, just as it is difficult to confidently predict that rising CO2 levels will result in dangerous warming.
I believe that was clear.
Websites of technology-*averse *people, hmmm … Organizations of people with aversions to organizing, hmm …
Come on now.
So - aside from looking for evidence of Neo-Luddites on the web 
…
Does anyone think there are macro-geoengineering solutions that are ready to be addressed?
I don’t have a cite but I saw a clip about experiments to scrub co2 directly on a large scale. The premise was that it would come down in price quickly if built on a large scale.
I’ve also read about experiments to lower the temp of ocean surfaces but that would be more oriented toward hurricane reduction.
I would support research on lowering the temperature versus trying to stop CO2 on the basis of cost effectiveness. I don’t get the warm and fuzzies when I fly over a field of 100 wind generators and none of them are moving. That doesn’t seem to be an effective solution. No I’m not saying they should never be built but I would hate to rely on these things in the heat of summer if the wind wasn’t blowing.
Does your first part reference CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) that I mentioned in post #42?
If so, it sounds like we’re in agreement - I have trouble buying a lot of these geo-engineering schemes until they can be tested on some larger scale.
There is a show on Discovery that basically experiments in macro-engineering projects like this. Scrub carbon from the air, plant trees by the millions by air drop, power generation from space, reflect sunlight back into space, etc etc. Most of the experiments seem do-able…but usually either the technology isn’t there yet or the costs would be too much.
Still, I’d say IF we are going to be CO2/GW it’s going to be through technology not through hoping that people are willing to radically alter their lifestyles. Even the Euros are having trouble getting a handle on Kyoto, and they are much more oriented toward regimentation, a less material lifestyle, have greater population concentrations, etc. Places like China and India…no way are they going to slow down regardless.
So, it’s develop technological solutions or basically just put up with GW…those seem to be the only viable alternatives that don’t include hefty levels of wishful thinking.
-XT
To some extent, we have already put up with warming and we will doubtless continue to do so in the future. I’ve persistently mentioned in other threads that we can’t stop global warming, and we will have to live with continued warming for some time into the future.
The question is how bad will the effects be before it is sufficient to encourage changes in people’s behavior. I disagree that people won’t alter their lifestyles (not sure how to define “radically”) - they’ll either alter them or face conditions in which the previous lifestyle is no longer possible. This has happened before on smaller scales - the deforestation of Rapa Nui produced vast changes in the lifestyles of the island’s inhabitants. We don’t really want to follow that model because presumably the island’s inhabitants didn’t plan for the change and prepare for it in advance. We do have those advantages.
The Easter Island example is a poor one, IMHO, as it was a very small and closed system. The global system is a bit more flexible…again IMHO, and as a non-climate guy.
As to people changing their lifestyles, I don’t think fear of the consequences of GW (or whatever) is going to do it. ECONOMIC reasons could and would certainly force changes…but not simple fear of what might happen. We’ve had quite a bit of GW scarwy-ness for several years now, yet it was increasing the price of gas by a dollar that brought about measurable change in the driving habits in the US. And I think that economic reasons are what is driving Europe’s efforts…much more than supposed social or ecological awareness.
By the time ecological change is to the point where it is actually impacting the majority of people (in the US or where ever) it will probably be too late to simply change our lifestyle to ‘fix’ the problem…and until it DOES start to serious impact a majority of people they won’t change. This has nothing to do with being American…it has to do with being human.
So…you could use economics to change lifestyle (say, raise the cost of gasoline or energy). This would have obvious political and social ramifications, but it would actually work…as opposed to telling people the sky is falling or that the spotted owl is about to go tits up (so to speak) and hoping people will do the right thing. Or we can take the technology route…which will also cost a lot of money and effort.
I’d say the technological (along with some economic pressure) is what WILL happen in the end…instead of wishful thinking that people will radically alter their lifestyles (as defined by drastically reducing their driving habits, moving back into the cities and away from the evil suburbs, reducing their energy consumptions in large ways, and generally hugging more trees, etc etc).
-XT
Right, the Sierra Club is still anti-nuke and wants to tear down dams.
The OP is suggesting that if we just calibrate things like triggered volcano eruptions, they could work just fine. The problem is that, even if we had complete control over volcanic eruptions, we still wouldn’t be able to calibrate them to counteract global warming. A volcanic eruption produces particulates which cool the Earth in the short term, but it also produces CO2 which makes the original problem worse in the long term. As the years went by, we would have to set off an exponentially growing number of volcanoes to keep up with the long-term effects from all the previous volcanoes we’d set off, and exponential growth always breaks eventually, somehow or other.
Eventually we’re going to have to address the actual roots of the problem, and the time to start doing that is now.
But the only reason the Easter Islanders survived long enough for Europeans to discover them is precisely because it was an open system!
I’m sorry - I’ve done a poor job of explaining myself, I’ll be more clear this time since there are several lessons one could take from the Rapa Nui example.
The lifestyle changes I refer to in post #55 are the agricultural and dietary changes that accompanied deforestation on Rapa Nui. Large-scale cultivation of fruits and vegetables became impossible when the deforestation and subsequent soil erosion ruined much of the arable land on the island. After the time of deforestation, islander diets became much more dependent on rats (vs. cultivated crops,) and these rats typically thrive on oceanic islands because they find seabird eggs easy pickings. So the islanders’ diet became much more dependent on the protein imports (in the natural sense, no human agent involved) from the sea surrounding the island, provided in the form of bird eggs. Ironically, the dependence is indirect because the deforestation event also significantly demolished the islanders’ boatbuilding capabilities - making it more difficult for the islanders to catch fish and seabirds themselves, so they came to eat the rats that could get the birds’ eggs. I think this may also have been related to the rise in importance of the birdman cult, but it’s been about four years since I read JoAnn Van Tilburg’s book on the island, so I’m not sure.
In any case, what I’m trying to say is that if people are unwilling to make the behavioral modifications to avoid global warming, the consequences of global warming are likely to change the natural systems we depend on so that behavioral changes are more necessary, or even a fait accompli (although I think the second possibility is unlikely.)
I emphatically agree with you here. As time progresses, the economic reasons for avoiding carbon emissions will become more apparent, and hopefully with force changes in an anthropological negative feedback. We’re not there yet though, and I don’t know whether that’s good or bad.
Well, that’s the difference between us. I see the geoengineering technologies as the same as the idea for a ‘silver bullet’ cancer cure - it won’t happen because cancer is fundamentally not only many different problems, but many different types of problems. Ultimately, I see global climate change* the same way - as a collection of many different types of problems that are likely to emerge from one intervention lasting 150 years or so. Like with cancer, the mind of John Q. Public would like to see one wonder cure developed. Unfortunately, the technical impossibility of a single wonder cure is not generally understood. I wish I could blame teachers ([sub]no, not really![/sub]) but more likely it’s just the attractiveness of wishful thinking.
By the way, xtisme, thanks for contributing to this thread. This is a much better discussion than most of the debates here about this topic. 
*[sub]Yeah, I often use “global warming” in these threads because I don’t want to imply that it could go either way. In this case, “climate change” is not only more technically accurate, but is also a good way of conveying the complexity of the issue.[/sub]
I think you’re severely underestimating the scale of the solutions you’re imagining. We’re talking about a problem caused by the carbon emissions of the entire human race. Surely a “fix” would have to be within a few orders of magnitude of that level of activity, something in the many trillions of dollars - certainly way more than the cost than the emissions-reduction programs being proposed.
Here’s a question. You’re not convinced that modern climate science is up to the task of figuring just what is actually going on right now. But you think that these same scientists would be able model the climate accurately enough to predict exactly how it will respond to massive interventions on a scale that has never even been observed? You’d consider literally betting the world on their abilities? What happened to the skepticism?
Really, I know there are Luddites out there, but I wouldn’t go labeling someone as one just because they’re instantly dismissive of ideas like starting a controlled nuclear winter by blowing up volcanoes. They may instead be reacting to the fact that that’s a really terrible idea.