An Inconvenient Truth...but a Convenient Solution

Well, Al Gore and others make an excellent case for the reality of global climate change and its consequences, but his solutions are all WRONG! [The Kyoto Protocol and hybrid vehicles are illogical distractions

For the sake of this discussion, let's say you accept that global warming is happening, the current increase in temperature is primarily man-made, and that it is already resulting in bad things for this planet. After all, that is what over 95% of scientists working on climate believe and what the national academies of every industrialized nation endorse. (I believe the dissenting scientists are those who are in the pay of oil companies.)

Although global warming is a serious threat to human life, global environments, and political stability, we are taking the wrong measures to try to fix it.

Basically the steps we are taking with things like the Kyoto Protocol, emissions credits, hybrid cars, energy efficient appliances, etc. are simply too little, too late. They will not stop the problem, but merely slow it (and not very much). As a matter of fact, if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions completely at this moment, it is still too little, too late.

Here's the problem: why do we think we can put out a fire by tossing less wood on it? Our efforts are focused on reducing the amount of emissions, but we are already past the point where we are affecting the environment.

Even if we reduce our emissions, we are still emitting and the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will continue to increase. Yes, it is at a lower rate, but we need to be doing much more to actually halt climate change and prevent the types of effects that we are already beginning to see. Actually, the ocean has so far been absorbing a lot of the excess carbon dioxide that we produce, but it is quickly reaching it's capacity, and then we will really see dramatic temperature increases.

Our talk of emission reductions is futile because the time for that has already past. Even working on clean energy like solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, tidal, hydrogen, etc. to completely eliminate emissions, while being somewhat useful, is still not enough .

Our valuable time, effort, and resources are being wasted on things like ethanol, biodiesel, fuel efficiency standards and other reduction measures when they should be focused on actually developing solutions that can really solve the problem. It's like we are just putting a bandage on a broken bone that needs a cast. But even elimination of emissions isn't enough at this point. There's more.

Why won't emissions reductions work?

One of our problems is with the heat capacity of water and therefore an effect called thermal inertia. Water is slower to heat and to cool than land. You may have noticed that in the morning at the seashore, the water will still be very cold after the beach has already warmed up. It then also stays warmer for a longer period after sunset when the land has already cooled. The same effect is occurring on a global scale.

Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25°C per decade against 0.13°C per decade). Even if we could halt greenhouse gas emissions right now, the oceans are still catching up and will continue to increase in temperature. Ending all emissions still wouldn't be the end of global warming. The full effect of our emissions will be felt long after we have managed to eliminate them.

There are also feedbacks to the cycle that we can no longer control which are amplifying the rate of temperature increase. As the earth warms, more water evaporates from the oceans and is held in the atmosphere as water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas itself. Therefore, the more the Earth warms, the more water goes into the air which warms it even more. We can stop putting carbon dioxide into the air, but we cannot stop water from evaporating from the oceans as this warming trend continues.

There is also the problem of positive feedback from the melting of ice caps and glaciers. One quality of ice is that it reflects much more light than water or dry land. As the ice caps and glaciers shrink, more of the sun's energy is absorbed rather than reflected. This causes more heating which in turn causes more shrinkage of the ice caps and so on. We are in a cycle that is beginning to perpetuate itself.

Is it apparent now how ridiculous it is to think that the Kyoto Protocol is a key to preventing global warming? The Kyoto Protocol calls for a reduction of emissions to 5% below 1990 levels (about 15% from today's levels). It came into force in February of 2005 and expires in 2012. What we need though is something more like a 5% reduction from 1850 levels and we needed it several decades ago.

It is not reasonable to expect such a small step to be this planet's salvation. The fact that few signatories of the Kyoto Protocol have actually managed to reduce emissions at all shows exactly how difficult this small step is. Furthermore, reducing our emissions does nothing to stop the clear cut burning that contributes about 30% of the carbon dioxide that enters our atmosphere every year.

Hybrid vehicles are also a ridiculous measure that do far too little. Unfortunately, advertising and marketing have many people believing that these are a key to the solution when in fact they are still adding to the problem. If you own a hybrid, I'm sorry to inform you, but you are still burning gas and adding greenhouse gases to the air. I lament the fact that most hybrid owners believe they are saving the planet when in actuality they are still contributing to global warming.

Let me be the first to admit that I still own a gas guzzling vehicle myself, and I still use heat and electricity that contribute to our emissions problem. I'm afraid that the real solutions are outside my abilities to accomplish as an individual and are more in the realm of government. Therefore, I believe the real way to make a difference is to encourage government officials to take the appropriate actions and help educate others who will wish to do the same. There are real solutions out there.

The Solution

So if emission reductions aren't the solution, and even the complete elimination of emissions (which isn't even practical for some time to come) still won't be enough to stop the cycle we've put into motion, what is the answer? We must find a way to actually reverse the warming trend. Sounds ambitious, huh? Especially when we can't seem to even effectively reduce our emissions.

Remember that global cooling has occurred in the past. Even as recently as the 15th and 16th centuries there was a “Little Ice Age”. The thing that reduces the temperature of our planet is less solar energy reaching it.

That can happen when the Earth's orbit brings it farther from the sun, or when the energy output from the sun is lower, or when something like volcanic activity or large meteor impacts produce dust that reflects more of the Sun's light back into space. Changing the Earth's orbit or altering the Sun's energy output don't seem very practical or feasible even, but blocking some of the Sun's energy very well could be.

In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted sending millions of tons of ash and gases, particularly sulfur dioxide, into the air. This had the effect of reducing global temperatures by .4 °C and had an effect lasting about three years. This helped to partly offset the rate of global warming at that time.

The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer." It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. Volcanic activity is also the most likely cause for the cooling trend observed in the 1970's which led some to propose the idea of an approaching Ice Age.

This is a concept that should be explored further. Volcanic eruptions aren't exactly something we could count on, but we could develop the means to inject particulates into the stratosphere in a more uniform and calculated manner that could stabilize our planet's temperature. Some scientists have been exploring this possibility, but their work is not yet mainstream and not actively explored by world governments today.

A hypothesis was voiced by the director of the Global Climate and Ecology Institute at Rosgidromet and the Russian Academy of Science, Yury Israel. "To control the climate..., some aerosol substances must be put into the lower stratosphere to absorb a part of sunlight. This in its turn will reduce the influence the Sun exerts upon the Earth's surface," the researcher said at a press-conference in 2005. He adds that for this purpose about 600,000 tons of aerosol particles must be pumped into the stratosphere to bring the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere down 1-2 °C. This amount of aerosol particles can be obtained by burning 100-200,000 tons of sulfur.

Yury Israel says sulfur may be delivered to the stratosphere and burned there. He also suggests using high-sulfur fuel in high-altitude planes. Both methods may reduce the temperature in the troposphere. These artificial formations usually drift in the stratosphere and form wide zones within the latitude of 30 to 70 degrees. These zones may protect the planet from solar radiation, the researcher believes. This is the same effect, but on a lesser scale, that we observe on Venus where sulfur dioxide clouds reflect 60% of the solar radiation that reach the planet.

I hope thats not the end, I think the point of many of those technologies, hybrids for example are to be a stepping stone towards fossil fuel free. Yes its doesnt stop the problem but it buys us more time to cure our addiction. And the part saying thatthe coean would still warm up is only true if the greenhouse gas levels also stay the same. If we stopped releasing greenhouse gases large amounts of greenhouse gases would be reabsorbed through natural processes and the oceans would stop warming.

That's not a cure. It's a band-aid. The problem will still be there when hte dust settles.

If you want a solution that involves no sacrifice whatsoever (as many seem to) what we need is a genetically engineered unicellular aquatic algae that metabolizes carbon dioxide at an amazing rate and produces more oxygen than it will consume when it dies

make machine to ac like a plant and do photosynthesis on a large scale.... dont ask me how one would possibly accomplish that

Is it feasible?

There are some concerns regarding sulfur dioxide. It is also formed from the combustion of fossil fuels and is considered a pollutant because it combines with water in the air to form sulphuric acid and falls as acid rain.

However, according to the calculations of Yuri Israel, solar radiation will be reduced by a little less than 1% and the amount of aerosol precipitating on the Earth's surface will amount to about .2 mg per square meter per year. This is about one thousand times less than the amount of sulfur dioxide currently falling on the planet through precipitation.

For comparison, the world's largest sulfur dioxide polluter alone, China, produced an estimated 25.5 million tons in 2005. An increase of 600,000 tons would be hardly noticeable, and we could continue to work towards reducing sulfur dioxide emissions at low altitudes. Helping China revamp their coal plants would produce a big cut in sulfur dioxide emissions.

The key is to get the sulfur dioxide up to high altitudes where it can effectively block solar radiation rather than having it in low altitudes where it quickly precipitates out in rain.

This is a solution that would be much more effective and economical than the measures stated in the Kyoto Protocol. It also can counteract the effect of greenhouse gases coming from clearcut burning which emission reductions can do nothing about. We could also explore other aerosols besides sulfur dioxide to find one that would be effective and more benign.

One great advantage to this approach is that the sulfur dioxide, or other aerosol, precipitates out over time, so there is no need to worry about causing an irreversible change to the atmosphere should the calculations be wrong. Through close monitoring, steadily infusing aerosols into the stratosphere would be an excellent way to regulate global temperatures. It could be done indefinitely until we develop clean technologies and wean our civilization off of fossil fuels. Eventually we would no longer even need to take steps to block solar radiation using aerosols in the stratosphere.

(By the way, in case the word “aerosol” has you worried about the effects on the ozone that we heard so much about fifteen or twenty years ago, do not fear. The aerosols that are ozone depleting agents are CFC's and other halons containing chlorine, fluorine, and bromine. Aerosol in technical usage simply means any liquid or solid particle suspended in air.)

By the way, if you are a die hard conservative who absolutely hates environmentalists because they care more about trees and owls than people's livelihoods, then you should love this idea. Using aerosols in the atmosphere means that no industry has to be crippled and made uncompetitive by unrealistic emissions standards while other countries continue to use cheaper and dirtier technologies. Let's keep on using oil as long as we need to.

Naturally, we will stop using fossil fuels eventually for the simple reason that we are running out, but extra government regulation won't be necessary. By the time gas costs $50 per gallon, people will have stopped using gas-powered vehicles and have chosen something cheaper on their own. When renewable energy is cheaper than coal, the market will dictate that we make the switch.

In fact, if the oil companies are smart, they will start lobbying and advertising for this solution. Then they would be able to continue to pump oil without inhibition until every drop is gone and at the same time show that they are comitted to the health of our planet and not just committed to making record profits. It would sure be much better PR than wasting money to fund ridiculous “Carbon Dioxide: Some call it pollution, we call it life.” ads.

Conclusion

This isn't the only possible solution. It's simply the one I focus on because to me it seems the most practical. Carbon sequestration in old oil wells and mines as well as in saline aquifers also seems like a good possibility that could have the same effect. Trapping carbon as mineral salts is another idea if we can find a way to speed up the process. There may be many other good ideas.

There have even been ideas that seem more far out like using satellites with mirrors to reflect sunlight before reaching the Earth, for example. However, we need to start exploring these ideas and stop focusing so much of our resources on ineffective emissions reduction plans.

Will burning sulfur in the stratosphere to cool our planet be expensive? It may be. But will it be more expensive than rebuilding cities and towns damaged or destroyed by severe weather and flooding, or more expensive than the economic impact of widespread crop failure, or more expensive than the cost of massive immigration and war? I don't think so. Consider those alternatives if your priority is economy over ecology. It may even cost the government less than giving a tax credit for everyone to go out and buy a hybrid.

Our problem is that humans are so short sighted. Of course we will pay to rebuild a city that has been destroyed by a severe hurricane (and pay a lot), but will we pay for the preventative measures to make all cities safer from natural disaster? Experience says no.

We will pay to fight forest fires and rebuild burned homes, but will we pay to prevent the climate change that magnifies drought and results in raging wild fires? We will also pay to send food and aid to countries suffering from famine or flooding, and we will pay for our military to act as peacekeepers in war torn lands, but will we pay to help prevent those conditions from ever happening? I hope so. It would be the wise and economically sound thing to do.

I hope that people will begin to see the benefits of being proactive rather than reactive. I hope that we will put elected officials into office who realize what measures are effective and what measures are not, and who have the courage and integrity to do what is necessary rather than cede to the pressures of corporations and lobbyists. Do you think that the farm lobby will like the idea of abandoning government subsidies to grow corn for ethanol? Of course not. There are no big “high altitude sulfur dioxide” corporations to pressure politicians, so it will fall to individuals like you and me. So let's spread the word and get our government working on a real solution.

Originally posted by tamerlane
Although global warming is a serious threat to human life...

That is also not entirely clear. As it turns out, if we heat the Earth up a bit more, there's a good chance it will result in more atmospheric water vapor, increasing the total amount of fresh water available through rain (not locked up in useless glaciers), and may have the effect of significantly increasing the amount of land (otherwise desert and tundra) that we would have for growing food.

Not a bad deal, overall.

if it were a problem then we would need to find a fix

the oceans temp has been on the decline

show prof of your wild claim

and less than 1/3 of the sciencetist actually support this and most that have supported this have retracted their claims and now are on the right side of the fence

A little concern about using this method...

Risky Business: Altering the atmosphere

There would be other consequences too in a geoengineered world: acidified oceans and distorted precipitation patterns. Historically, ocean pH has been a slightly basic 8.16. It has crept down by 0.1 units over the last 200 years and may fall by as much as 0.4 units by 2100 if carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise at their current pace. The release of sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere could further increase ocean acidity as the oceanic carbon sink expands.

"There will be huge consequences for the entire marine ecosystem," says Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University. The decline in pH hampers the ability of marine organisms to build shells and skeletons. Coral reefs may weaken or collapse, and pteropods, oysters, clams and mussels — all creatures with calcium carbonate shells — could be jeopardized, with the risk of changing the biodiversity of the oceans.

Volcanic eruptions show that rainfall patterns across the globe would also be disrupted. Kevin Trenberth, an atmospheric scientist at NCAR, has been reconstructing rainfall and continental runoff patterns following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. In the year after the incident, overland precipitation slowed down and the associated runoff and river discharge plummeted4. The timing coincided with widespread regions of moderate and severe drought.

So you might end up with droughts and famine, even to those who live off the sea...

I'm in favour of the method proposed by TheWalkingFox. Combine that with iron fertilization for maximum impact.

reply to post by DaleGribble


I didn't intend to make this thread a debate on the reality of global warming. That is why I prefaced it with "Let's assume you already believe...". I would like to discuss that on another thread soon though. For this discussion, though, I'm talking about the solutions. You may consider it hypothetical if you wish.

It's refreshing, for a change, to see a thread that discusses remediation possibilities with respect to climate change. The problem, of course, is that it's tough discussing any remediation option, when the causation mechanism is still so hotly contested.

I applaud the effort, nonetheless.

The biggest concern I have with seeding the atmosphere with anything is that even if they precipitate out over time, there is little to no understanding of the environmental impact to ecosystems down below. It does us little good to reverse warming trends, if the method for doing so adversely impacts the environment in other ways.

Until we know more, if that is even possible in the near future, I am beginning to think more should be done in the area of adaptive policies and technologies.

Like most problems, this needs aggressive analysis from many vantage points.



Nice thread.



[edit on 11-2-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

If you want a solution that involves no sacrifice whatsoever (as many seem to) what we need is a genetically engineered unicellular aquatic algae that metabolizes carbon dioxide at an amazing rate and produces more oxygen than it will consume when it dies

The algae might be a good idea. It could also have many other uses like fertilizer, food, or produce vegetable oil to use for biodiesel. I hope someone gets working on something like that soon. I've been involved in bioengineering research myself (as an undergraduate lab assistant) and I know it can take quite a while to do something like that unless you get lucky.

reply to post by tamerlane


Quite lengthy, but very informative. I am currently in the market to buy a hybrid, simply because I commute 40 miles to work and want to cut down on what I'm spending on gas.

Very well researched you sound like an expert on the subject!