Anthropgenic Climate Change

[quadibloc]

Someone said this forum had too many threads on politics, religion, and the weather.

Well, I couldn't find any threads about the weather, so I thought I'd start one.

Generally, I'm a somewhat conservative person. (On domestic economic policy, I'm actually a liberal, and I don't mean a laissez-faire classical liberal - but being a hawk, nobody would ever mistake me for a liberal by today's standards.)

But with the ozone hole, finally the ecology doomsayers, who were out to lunch in the '60s and '70s, appear to be right - human activity has grown to a level where it can have world-wide consequences.

The consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is real. Consequences are already visible - damage to the Great Barrier Reef, reduction in the range of polar bears, and methane release from Siberian permafrost, which threatens to tip the system to more rapid warming.

But...

Right now, of course, we're in the midst of an economic crash. The well-being of most people is dependent on a healthy economy, and severe restrictions on fossil fuel use would impact the economy greatly.

Solar and wind power, I believe, aren't going to be adequate to take the place of fossil fuels; it takes a lot of space to make a given amount of power by those methods.

Well, I have a solution.

We can build pretty much as much power generating capacity as we want, where we want... using nuclear power plants.

Breeder reactors - and the Thorium breeder - can keep us going for long enough to be able to use more ambitious techniques, like solar power satellites or fusion power.

[wellington1869]

Someone said this forum had too many threads on politics, religion, and the weather.

Well, I couldn't find any threads about the weather, so I thought I'd start one.

lol!

Right now, of course, we're in the midst of an economic crash. The well-being of most people is dependent on a healthy economy, and severe restrictions on fossil fuel use would impact the economy greatly.

well the usual response there is that precisely because of the economic downturn what we desperately need is new and cutting edge technologies -- like green technologies -- to spur innovation and manufacturing in north america once again.
and a positive side effect is to starve jihadi regimes of oil income.
and its good for the environment to boot.
So its a triple-goodness.

Breeder reactors - and the Thorium breeder - can keep us going for long enough to be able to use more ambitious techniques, like solar power satellites or fusion power.

building out smaller nuclear reactors are definitely on the table in the US anyway. I think we will ultimately need a combination strategy -- some new nuclear reactors; some pure electric solutions; some savings from better building materials and better heat/cold conserving designs for buildings; some turn to coal and gas and solar, etc.

some kind of combination strategy i think is required so i think all options should be on the table. Each can spur innovation within its field, and all of them take money away from oil and oil regimes.

[Daniel Beaver]

I feel that, in general, the real question about the global warming debate is: "what is the role of experts in a democratic society?"

I think it is presumptuous to think that non-experts can have a meaningful debate about climate science. But, how much do we defer to the opinions of experts? While most climatologists agree that humans cause climate change, it doesn't seem wise to me to just always side with the majority. Coming from an academic background (my parents are both research professors, and I worked on several research projects in college), I can appreciate that scientists are people too, and that the majority can be wrong.

So, Anthropgenic Climate Change...

Humans have become a geophysical force, in more than one way. We move mountains. We destroy and build entire eco-systems. We influence localized climate changes (city heat islands), as well as regional weather (think of the Dust Bowl in the 30's). We clear entire forests, pave them over, and cover them with crop plants. We changed the composition of the atmosphere, increasing the levels of CO2, Lead, methane, etc. To keep insisting that we cannot influence world-wide climate seems naive to me.

And I could just as easily make arguments supporting the other side. I'm no expert on the subject. While I have strong opinions about the subject, it is ultimately foolish to think that I have a full grasp of it.

We can build pretty much as much power generating capacity as we want, where we want... using nuclear power plants.

They aren't a "forever" solution. Uranium is a finite resource, exactly as fossil fuels are. But in the meantime, they are a great stop-gap solution.

Wellington's answer is wise; a combination solution, with a gradual transition into completely renewable resources will be the sane solution to long-term sustainable energy generation. Ultimately, I feel that everything will transition to solar power, or to fusion power if we get that working. But it will take decades, maybe even more than a century for that transition to be completed.

Clean, sustainable energy seems like a no-brainer to me, even if you don't buy into climate change.

[wellington1869]

thats the thing - renewable energy makes so much sense on so many levels, regardless of whether or not you think global warming is a reality.

other perfectly sensible reasons to gradually move 100% to renewable energy sources:
-national security: starve the damn jihadists.
-manufacturing and jobs from new technologies which in turn can be exported around the world
-not using up other resources which are by definition finite

in light of these reasons, the global warming question is pretty irrelevant in terms of making a decision on this.

[Daniel Beaver]

Breeder reactors - and the Thorium breeder - can keep us going for long enough to be able to use more ambitious techniques, like solar power satellites or fusion power.

The trouble with breeder reactors is that they inherently allow the creation of weapons-grade nuclear material. That's not so much a problem if you're building them in a "trusted" country. But if we're talking about a long-term energy solution for the entire world, that mean's that we have to have breeder reactors in every country. From a technical point of view, breeder reactors are awesome. From a nuclear proliferation point-of-view, they give me pause.

-national security: starve the damn jihadists.
-manufacturing and jobs from new technologies which in turn can be exported around the world
-not using up other resources which are by definition finite

Yeah, I don't understand the conservative backlash against renewable energy production. I mean, we're talking about fully domestic production of energy, employing US workers. The alternative is to be reliant on the Middle East, on Venezuela, on Nigera, on Russia for our energy. Which seems like the opposite of conservative philosophy.

[wellington1869]

Input resources aside, nuclear is NOT the answer and should NOT be treated as one.

The leftover waste is far more damaging than sticking with fossil fuels for the time being. We can't reverse the damage that has been done, but we CAN put a priority on NEW technologies (or improving the existing technology pertaining to solar and wind power).

they're working on a system where nuclear waste becomes harmless within 20 years. I remember reading about this; bill gates' foundation is helping to fund the testing and research.

While nuclear reactors in the long run I think are definitely not the solution, in the short run they may help bridge the energy divide as we transition to more sustainable sources. If it helps accelerate leaving oil behind, I might be for it.

at the moment solar and wind etc are nowhere capable of providing the amounts of power needed to sustain any nations economy in full. something will have to make up the difference.

[Daniel Beaver]

The leftover waste is far more damaging than sticking with fossil fuels for the time being. We can't reverse the damage that has been done, but we CAN put a priority on NEW technologies (or improving the existing technology pertaining to solar and wind power).

I generally feel that this is an overblown concern, since you aren't producing very much waste. It has become a great political football for environmentalists, but I think it ultimately hurts their cause. Still, I won't deny that there is a problem to be looked at, and it is definitely a mark against nuclear.

[wellington1869]

there are also some really innovative solutions in the works, like oil derived from algae whcih would actualy be carbon-neutral and would not tap natural oil reserves. but all that will take a few decades to develop and deploy.

[Daniel Beaver]

at the moment solar and wind etc are nowhere capable of providing the amounts of power needed to sustain any nations economy in full. something will have to make up the difference.

I'm just going to throw this out there:

Orbital Solar

Space-based solar power (SBSP) (or historically space solar power- SSP) is a system for the collection of solar power in space, for use on Earth. SBSP differs from the usual method of solar power collection in that the solar panels used to collect the energy would reside on a satellite in orbit, often referred to as a solar power satellite  (SPS), rather than on Earth's surface. In space, collection of the Sun's energy is unaffected by the various obstructions which reduce efficiency or capacities of Earth surface solar power collection.

Doable with 1960's-era technology. All the energy you could ever need. Insanely expensive - as in, would require double-digit investment of the entire world's gross domestic product. Totally worth it in the long run. The engineer in me goes "squeeeeee!!!"

[wellington1869]

very cool maybe the price will be much lower today?

hey for now if i can get a diesel-hybrid getting 60mpg for a start i'll be pretty happy but say 30 years from now if we're not all driving electric vehicles then basically we've lost the jihad wars.

[mike]

Input resources aside, nuclear is NOT the answer and should NOT be treated as one.

The leftover waste is far more damaging than sticking with fossil fuels for the time being. We can't reverse the damage that has been done, but we CAN put a priority on NEW technologies (or improving the existing technology pertaining to solar and wind power).

The interesting thing about nuclear power is that there is less radioactivity released into the environment than with burning conventional fossil fuels.

As for renewable power sources, it's a shame that geothermal technology doesn't get as much attention as wind and solar. But space-based solar is probably the coolest possible solution

[keyboardlover]

The interesting thing about nuclear power is that there is less radioactivity released into the environment than with burning conventional fossil fuels.

As for renewable power sources, it's a shame that geothermal technology doesn't get as much attention as wind and solar. But space-based solar is probably the coolest possible solution

Geothermal energy...interesting. You mean like in Iceland?

[wellington1869]

Geothermal energy...interesting. You mean like in Iceland?

well, it helps if your entire nation is one giant active volcano

[ch_123]

thats the thing - renewable energy makes so much sense on so many levels, regardless of whether or not you think global warming is a reality.

other perfectly sensible reasons to gradually move 100% to renewable energy sources:
-national security: starve the damn jihadists.
-manufacturing and jobs from new technologies which in turn can be exported around the world
-not using up other resources which are by definition finite

in light of these reasons, the global warming question is pretty irrelevant in terms of making a decision on this.

This sums up my views on the feeling entirely.

From what I have read, there are quite a lot of doubts in the scientific community as to whether the sort of doomsday disasters that we have been all been fed on are really accurate or meaningful. The reality is that in science, once a particular viewpoint gains traction, people are discouraged from going against in the mainstream to risk being ostracized from funding sources.

However, even if assume that greenhouse gasses from humans is a serious threat, and we get rid of fossil fuel burning is eliminated over night, there are other issues to contend with - the methane released from cattle ranches is as big a problem (bigger according to some) as fossil fuel burning. The quest continues...

The leftover waste is far more damaging than sticking with fossil fuels for the time being. We can't reverse the damage that has been done, but we CAN put a priority on NEW technologies (or improving the existing technology pertaining to solar and wind power).

Personally I'm preferring the potential risk of radiation poisoning over the definite ill-effects of fossil fuel burning that currently stand. I guess it's the more dramatic stuff that scares people.

[Ekaros]

Nuclear is only economicly viable mid-term solution, if we are realy going to want to reduce CO2 output and not cut our compsumption massively.

I think main problem with local green-activist is that they are against nuclear power, but can't provide any    real solutions which didn't include it...

On other hand, I don't realy care as I like to think in realy long scale(5 billion years...) and on that nothing will realy matter...

[ch_123]

Uranium is another finite resource, and I've heard some estimates suggest that there may only be about a century's worth of it left, let alone how much we would need if every started building nuclear plants.

Of course, you can recycle spent nuclear fuel, but there is a diminishing returns principle there - you can't get something for nothing.

[Ekaros]

Uranium is another finite resource, and I've heard some estimates suggest that there may only be about a century's worth of it left, let alone how much we would need if every started building nuclear plants.

Of course, you can recycle spent nuclear fuel, but there is a diminishing returns principle there - you can't get something for nothing.

Even 50 years is a pretty large timeframe for new techs. Anyway I think we need to start to save oil for plastics and such soon and not just burn it for energy. As I said nuclear is good for mid-term solution, could get it working in 10-20 years with replacement of plants and some new ones and then replace those with something better, which hopefully have atleast something new ready. Nuclear has an issues, but so do everything else and it is quite cost-effective(atleast if you don't buy from french...)

Edit:
After cheking from local building make it 15-25 years...

[Rajagra]

thats the thing - renewable energy makes so much sense on so many levels

Apart from being expensive, unreliable, and damaging to the environment in hidden ways. (Analogy: I'm sick of people saying that electric vehicles are zero emission when that fact simply means the emissions happen elsewhere, and the batteries create issues of their own.)

Not to mention windfarms being sabotaged by pesky UFOs.

Wake me up when the theoretical green utopia becomes a real possibility.

[Ekaros]

Apart from being expensive, unreliable, and damaging to the environment in hidden ways. (Analogy: I'm sick of people saying that electric vehicles are zero emission when that fact simply means the emissions happen elsewhere, and the batteries create issues of their own.)

Not to mention windfarms being sabotaged by pesky UFOs.

Wake me up when the theoretical green utopia becomes a real possibility.

Hydroelectric power is good option, it's reliable, cheap and tested. What? We can't use it on those last spots? Yeah... Availability is a issue and side-effects to nature...

[Rajagra]

Hydroelectric power is good option, it's reliable, cheap and tested.

Indeed, and that's why it was in use for decades before crazy scientists started claiming the sky was falling. It works ... so they use it. As they would already be using any other green energy source that was practical. Provide the solutions and they will be used. It's no use saying we must use solution X or else problem Y will happen, unless solution X exists. It doesn't even matter if Y is really happening. X has to be achievable before we make can use of it.

[quadibloc]

in light of these reasons, the global warming question is pretty irrelevant in terms of making a decision on this.

No, not really. Moving to renewable energy is a good thing. Global warming makes it an urgent thing - i.e. build replacement nuclear power stations to replace every single fossil fuel powered electrical generating plant, starting immediately, and as soon as they're built, decommission the fossil fuel ones.

If it weren't for global warming, we would be doing this one plant at a time instead of all at once, and over a century, not a single decade.

Uranium is another finite resource, and I've heard some estimates suggest that there may only be about a century's worth of it left, let alone how much we would need if every started building nuclear plants.

Of course, you can recycle spent nuclear fuel, but there is a diminishing returns principle there - you can't get something for nothing.

No, you can't get something for nothing. But with breeder reactors, U-238 becomes fuel, and it is over a hundred times as abundant as U-235 which is the natural substance usable as reactor fuel.

And it's also possible to produce fissionable U-233 from Th-232, the most common isotope of Thorium, the same way as Pu-239 is produced from U-238 in a breeder reactor, by neutron bombardment. That triples our fuel reserves again, based on conservative estimates.

Optimistic estimates would note that Thorium is present, but in low concentrations, in very common rocks. Less convenient than extracting deuterium from the oceans for fusion, but "burning the rocks" was the name given this possibility back in the 1950s, and it's not a flight of fancy, even if it is a technical challenge for the future.

Keeping civilization going for another hundred years or more should give us plenty of time to convert to fusion power, or solar power satellites.

[mike]

Geothermal energy...interesting. You mean like in Iceland?

Well, yes and no (to use a phrase I'm known for).

Geothermal power can be generated nearly anywhere with a deep enough hole, and it doesn't have to have liquid rock at the bottom. After all there's plenty of deep mines which are nearly too hot to work in.

Geologically 'active' regions like Iceland (or "The Geysers" in California) are the obvious places to put geothermal plants, but they're a lot more widespread than that.

[Ekaros]

No, not really. Moving to renewable energy is a good thing. Global warming makes it an urgent thing - i.e. build replacement nuclear power stations to replace every single fossil fuel powered electrical generating plant, starting immediately, and as soon as they're built, decommission the fossil fuel ones.

If it weren't for global warming, we would be doing this one plant at a time instead of all at once, and over a century, not a single decade.

No, you can't get something for nothing. But with breeder reactors, U-238 becomes fuel, and it is over a hundred times as abundant as U-235 which is the natural substance usable as reactor fuel.

And it's also possible to produce fissionable U-233 from Th-232, the most common isotope of Thorium, the same way as Pu-239 is produced from U-238 in a breeder reactor, by neutron bombardment. That triples our fuel reserves again, based on conservative estimates.

Optimistic estimates would note that Thorium is present, but in low concentrations, in very common rocks. Less convenient than extracting deuterium from the oceans for fusion, but "burning the rocks" was the name given this possibility back in the 1950s, and it's not a flight of fancy, even if it is a technical challenge for the future.

Keeping civilization going for another hundred years or more should give us plenty of time to convert to fusion power, or solar power satellites.

Or we could develope hi-efficiency solar-power and workable super conductors. So we could even get solar-farms on earth and transfer energy almost losslessly. Nuclear power is one of the best solution for low-carbon energy production before real clean sources.

[Oqsy]

WTF is carbon neutral?  Unless you're involving carbon in fission, fusion, or referring to radioactive decay or maybe reactions with dark matter, every process in use IS already carbon neutral!  Just because the carbon comes out in a different compound doesn't mean it's created or destroyed.  Conservation of Mass ftw, liberal environazi catch phrases FTL.

[Rajagra]

Damn those alchemists.

[quadibloc]

WTF is carbon neutral?  Unless you're involving carbon in fission, fusion, or referring to radioactive decay or maybe reactions with dark matter, every process in use IS already carbon neutral!

Burning fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground, and puts it in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

On the other hand, growing plants and then burning their leaves is carbon neutral, since the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by the fire was originally taken out of the atmosphere by the plant.

Thus, the phrase, although somewhat shortened, has a meaning that is real, and easily understood. If you prefer, you can say "atmospheric carbon dioxide neutral".

[Rajagra]

The buzzwords that form the basis of the global warming theory are one reason I have little faith in it. Once the language used to discuss a topic includes phrases that assume the truth of a theory, it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. Even a question can become an accusation: "what is your carbon footprint?" implies not only that global warming is happening and man-made, but everyone is by default guilty to some extent of contributing to the damage. Anybody talking to me like that can expect my carbon footprint up their carbon-hued ejection hole.:rant:

[Oqsy]

Yeah, but... no.  The "fossil fuels" come from fossils, or former carbon based life, correct?  If we go on that assumption then that carbon was in the atmosphere before being consumed and reconstituted in plant/animal matter which, after the plant/animal died, decayed in a scenario ideal for fossil fuel creation.  You're still turning CO2 from the air into biological carbon, and back into atmospheric CO2...  Why is dinosaur or millions of years of plankton CO2 more dangerous than any other CO2?

I'm too tired to get into it any further right now, but trust me, your logic breaks down VERY fast.

[wellington1869]

The buzzwords that form the basis of the global warming theory are one reason I have little faith in it. Once the language used to discuss a topic includes phrases that assume the truth of a theory, it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. Even a question can become an accusation: "what is your carbon footprint?" implies not only that global warming is happening and man-made, but everyone is by default guilty to some extent of contributing to the damage. Anybody talking to me like that can expect my carbon footprint up their carbon-hued ejection hole.:rant:

its not really 'buzzwords'.  the problem isnt carbon as such but atmospheric carbon which creates a greenhouse effect in the atmophere and thus contributes to global warming. The idea is to control or reduce atmospheric carbon.  Burning fossil fuels in the quantities in whcih we're burning them, releases huge amounts of atmospheric carbon. Thats what we are seeking to avoid or change. Which in turn will reduce the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, thereby reducing (the theory goes) the global warming effect.

Shifting to electric vehicles in this respect helps enormously, because a huge percentage of the released carbon is coming from internal combustion engines which use oil and release atmospheric carbon.

Its true that even if shift to electric vehicles, that energy has to come from somehwere.  In the case of electric vehicles, the burden is shifted to city-wide power plants which power the electric grid, and into which we plug in the electric vehicles.

THe idea however, is that city-wide power plants dont run on oil or need not run on oil or coal. They can run on nuclear, or hydro-electric, or come from wind and solar farms.

At that point the production of energy thus need not release atmospheric carbon.

THere may well be other issues - like control of nuclear waste - which are real issues. But those are different issues and can/should be dealt with on their own terms (such as reducing the toxicity/amount of waste, which they're working on now; or such as seeing nuclear power plants as a temporary solution until much less toxic ways to generate renewable energy come online).

[wellington1869]

The buzzwords that form the basis of the global warming theory are one reason I have little faith in it. Once the language used to discuss a topic includes phrases that assume the truth of a theory, it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. Even a question can become an accusation: "what is your carbon footprint?" implies not only that global warming is happening and man-made, but everyone is by default guilty to some extent of contributing to the damage. Anybody talking to me like that can expect my carbon footprint up their carbon-hued ejection hole.:rant:

words like carbon neutral and carbon footprint arent merely buzzwords. Quadibloc explained it well. THe idea with oil-producing algae, for instance, is that while in algae form, the algae actually soak up enough atmospheric carbon (as plants do) to offset the carbon released into the atmosphere when they are burned as oil. Hence: Carbon neutral. Ie, are not making a net contribution of carbon into the atmosphere.

[mike]

I'm sick of people saying that electric vehicles are zero emission when that fact simply means the emissions happen elsewhere, and the batteries create issues of their own.

Most people are dumb so it isn't surprising that most of what they say is dumb too.

However electric vehicles do have some advantages over internal combustion :-

• Less noise pollution so reducing stress for city dwellers.
• Less noxious emissions along the roadside, improving the quality of air in cities (you do know that many people die each year because of air pollution don't you?).

Whilst it's right that electric vehicles move the emissions from the car to the power plant, this in itself has advantages. First of all, it's far easier to treat emissions at a centralised power plant - whether scrubbing ash, more complete burning, or carbon sequestration.

Secondly, internal combustion engines are pretty inefficient when it comes to converting the available chemical energy into mechanical motion - about 18-20% whereas even a coal-fired power station gets 30% and natural gas fired stations reach 50%.

So even today carbon emissions from electric vehicles have lower carbon emissions than internal combustion engines and that advantage will improve as power generation moves away from fossil fuels.

[mike]

Why is dinosaur or millions of years of plankton CO2 more dangerous than any other CO2?

Sigh. If you need this explaining after the amount of information floating around for years, then you won't understand the answer.

[Lanx]

isn't everything a problem?
nuclear power, while good, has had a stigma for years, 3mile island/chenerbyl and we don't know what to do with the waste (send it to space? but it could blow up on launch, so build big metal encasements and bury)

solar power, isn't the thing that gets excited from the solar rays really difficult to mine? and then installing it is pretty time consuming, hence= costs more?

doesn't wind farms kill lots of birds, and cause noise pollution for the ppl around it?

isn't going away from fossil fuels more expensive? we're trying to supplement fossil fuels for ethanol or whatever right? basically grow corn, do something scientific get ethanol. That whole process takes a lot of time/money and don't we already subsidize corn anway? don't we make so much corn that we had to invent high fructose corn syrup(which they want to call corn sugar now) to do something with the corn. Don't we grow so much corn cuz of gov't subsidies that it's cheaper for mexico, which argueable has more corn uses (corn torillas, tacos, not really trying to be racist) buy corn from us instead of growing it. So we're paying ppl to grown corn for no purpose, then we're paying other ppl to make this into gas for more expensive cars (cuz these green cars will always be more expensive) that we then tax cuz taxes are cool.

not to mention it's kinda hyocritical that we'd grow food, stuff we can eat and use it to power our cars instead of feeding the 1billion or more hungry , starving , dying ppl.

Also i'm pretty sure we won't be destroying the earth i mean the earth is pretty resilent.

If anything, the best way to save the planet would be to kill the lobbiests cuz we know the only reason the old way still works and gets done is cuz of money.

[wellington1869]

isn't everything a problem?

yes, so its a question of choosing between options based on what we need. Both diamonds and coal are made of carbon, but have different uses and values, they're not "the same".

isn't going away from fossil fuels more expensive?

no; internal combustion engines are horrifically inefficient (some 90% of their energy is dissapated, wasted, as heat).  With solar panels on your roof, you could in fact get paid for feeding your excess energy into the grid, thus making money rather than spending money.

Initial costs for any new technology will come down soon as manufacturing ramps up (thats the magic of capitalism).  All thats missing is the political will, whcih is also ramping up because of all the additional benefits of switching our energy system (jobs, winning the jihad war, not relying on finite sources of energy, etc).

Also i'm pretty sure we won't be destroying the earth i mean the earth is pretty resilent.

the earth itself will last forever - the question is will we still be on it.

If anything, the best way to save the planet would be to kill the lobbiests cuz we know the only reason the old way still works and gets done is cuz of money.

thats true

[quadibloc]

Why is dinosaur or millions of years of plankton CO2 more dangerous than any other CO2?

The problem is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Adding carbon dioxide to what is already present in the atmosphere is dangerous. Subtracting carbon dioxide is helpful.

Burning fossil fuels adds and does not subtract. If one plants extra trees where trees did not exist before, then one would be subtracting to make up for one's additions.

Once the language used to discuss a topic includes phrases that assume the truth of a theory, it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational discussion.

The greenhouse effect is well-established physics, as is the transparency of carbon dioxide at various infrared wavelengths.

Most of the scientists who have made statements contradicting the claim of anthropogenic global warming... are oil industry shills. There isn't a more polite way to say it.

It is true that the computer models attempting to predict the pace of climate change are at the frontiers of research, though, and so they can't be trusted to give accurate forecasts. Each week seems to bring one with a new estimate of when certain "bad things" will happen.

We just don't know, therefore, whether there's a real problem or not. The trouble is, there's a huge time lag between an elevated carbon dioxide level and reaching an equilibrium temperature. So by the time we have undeniable proof that something is happening, it could be too late to take action (except possibly geoengineering, which is genuinely risky, even if it's also controversial for other reasons which I find invalid, such as being spiritually inferior to sacrificing excess energy consumption).

But if the way to stop global warming is to cut energy use drastically, with huge economic consequences... well, one needs proof before doing that.

Which is why I'm really supportive of nuclear power as a solution. Business as usual almost. It's a response we can take at a level of urgency corresponding to "as if we knew the worst case was true" without serious difficulties caused by doing so - building a whole pile of nuclear power plants is a nice stimulus project. If putting all those extra people to work increases imports above exports - dump GATT and the WTO: it's time we went back to full employment.

The natural level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is about 280 ppm; currently, the level is running at about 375 ppm. As we don't know exactly how all the feedback mechanisms in the environment work, unless we see signs of the imminent end of the current interglacial period, we should work to return the atmospheric carbon dioxide level to its natural value, and keep it there.

As it happens, we might not want to go that far immediately, given that the Sun is currently low on sunspots at the moment.

[Daniel Beaver]

Also i'm pretty sure we won't be destroying the earth i mean the earth is pretty resilent.

The earth will be fine. Will we?

[Ekaros]

The earth will be fine. Will we?

Who cares?

[quadibloc]

Who cares?

It's whether we will be fine, not that the Earth will be fine anyways, that nearly everyone cares about. About not only the well-being of the humans living today, but the humans who live in the future. Not just that they survive and have food, but that they can enjoy a beautiful natural world with beautiful biological diversity.

[Daniel Beaver]

Who cares?

Um... I hope you care if humanity lives and prospers into the future. It would be depressingly nihilistic of you if you didn't

(methinks you probably misunderstood my previous response)

[wellington1869]

Who cares?

i care quite a bit...

[Ekaros]

Um... I hope you care if humanity lives and prospers into the future. It would be depressingly nihilistic of you if you didn't

(methinks you probably misunderstood my previous response)

At this point I don't... We are doing quite fine, but we could let some other species in couple millenias to try too...

[Oqsy]

Sigh. If you need this explaining after the amount of information floating around for years, then you won't understand the answer.

mike: Do you feel better now?  Just remember that you're the one that turned this personal when you start acting all butt-sore in your next post.

Telling me that I wouldn't "understand" the answer is such a cop out, and an obvious sign that YOU don't know the answer.  You're full of ****, and have been as long as I've seen you on geekhack.  Answering a question with an elitist and smug "you wouldn't get it anyway" shows me that you have no interest in discussion of the topic if it strays one iota from your accepted view of the world, and would rather get a hard-on from talking down to people.  You don't know me, and never will, but I can guarantee you that I have no problems following logic, if you indeed have any to offer.  Since you most likely don't, and would rather go ad hom., I'll play along on your level, you ****ing ass-rash.

As for Ekaros and his anti-human sentiment, be careful or you might end up like the disgruntled Discovery Channel bomber.

[ch_123]

Nature tends to establish itself into an equilibrium to deal with these things. Some CO2 is produced naturally, and some is eaten up by plant life. Some destroys the ozone layer, but that's alright, because the ozone layer will actually rebuild itself of its own accord. The issue of course is that we're a) dramatically increasing the amounts of CO2 being pumped into the air and b) destroying plant life that does a very good job of eating the excess CO2 up, so the ozone layer is being damaged quicker than it can repair itself normally.

Truth be told, I'm more interested in CO2 in terms of the very tangible effects of pollution as opposed to this whole climate change thing, but there's the basic jyst of it.

[mike]

mike: Do you feel better now?  Just remember that you're the one that turned this personal when you start acting all butt-sore in your next post.

Hmm ... "environazi" seems pretty insulting. To be perfectly honest I thought you were trolling. "Butt-sore" ? Not at all, just bored of explaining the bleeding obvious (well I didn't need "carbon neutral" explained and I'm hardly an expert in this area having had my last science lesson in this sort of area more than 25 years ago).

But as I'm in a different mood tonight ...

Sure, burning fossil fuels can be considered carbon neutral over the lifetime of this planet. But most in this thread are concerned with climate change and the factors that influence climate change during the "geological now" (say today +/- 200 years).

If you're concerned about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now, burning fossil fuels that last turned O2 into CO2 millions of years ago is bad because it increases CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning stuff that was turning O2 into CO2 recently will release CO2 into the atmosphere, but averaged out won't increase the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Of course you can burn fossil fuels in a carbon neutral manner by ensuring that the CO2 released is captured or balanced in some way.

[keyb_gr]

Ultimately we have to get our energy footprint down, whether we like it or not. (Of course we can put our head in the sand and ignore the problem altogether, which would be all too human, but that has rarely led to any solutions.) There just isn't any way of generating electric energy that would be truly environmentally neutral.
Burning coal - releases plenty of historic carbon into the armosphere. (Same goes for oil.)
Nuclear power - is based on the premise that one day we'll find a safe way of permanently disposing of radioactive waste. (Seems like a bulletproof concept, right...?)
Water power - creates huge artificial lakes and changes whole ecosystems.
Solar power - may require more power for panels and stuff than it ever produces at the current technological level.
Wind power - not too bird-friendly.
Moreover, most of the renewable energy sources tend to fluctuate in output significantly, requiring more buffering capacity than we currently have. Saving energy still is a big problem. Actually this is why cars still use antiquated fossil fuel - hard to beat the energy density. I think making cars more efficient (e.g. hybrid concepts and such) is more promising than going all electric, save for problematic metropolitan areas.
For obvious thermodynamic reasons, just about all the energy ever produced from non-renewable sources ultimately ends up heating up our atmosphere. Doesn't make the whole climate change thing any better.

I think it would be interesting to see a total (lifetime) energy footprint for the things we use. Wouldn't be surprising if long-lived devices fared better here, in spite of possible higher energy consumption in use. Not to mention the amounts of plastic floating around in certain sea areas.

BTW, there are more things contributing to greenhouse effect than just CO2. Methane is a highly effective greenhouse gas, for example. Now humans have reduced the areas of moors, but they breed lots of cattle instead.

Ozone layer depletion is another issue that doesn't have much to do with CO2 but rather other gases. The stuff used in fridges and stuff nowadays is less hazardous, but still anything but harmless.

For some more fun, the Earth's magnetic field is expected to turn around in no more than a few hundred years, which would be long overdue. The resulting temporary weaking and chaotic behavior will leave our planet without protection from the solar wind. Increased radiation levels won't make things any easier for us down here, not to mention shortwave propagation will be screwed up bigtime, but the poor satellites will have some real fun up there.

BTW, the correct spelling should be "anthropogenic".

[microsoft windows]

If you all are concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, you better dry up those oceans. They emit almost all of it.

[wellington1869]

breed lots of cattle instead.

yea, but getting people to become mostly vegetarian (again for the personal health benefits as much as for the environmental benefits of reducing animal farm runoff into our streams and rivers and reducing cattle-methane and reducing destruction of amazon for grazing grounds) -- seems to really piss people off even more than global warming theory.  Even tho it similarly makes sense on multiple/independent levels.

For some more fun, the Earth's magnetic field is expected to turn around in no more than a few hundred years

yea i saw that discovery channel special too -- it was excellent! :-D  And kinda scary.

[Lanx]

I thought we were done with the vegetarian debate,
omnivores=win!

[quadibloc]

For some more fun, the Earth's magnetic field is expected to turn around in no more than a few hundred years,

Ah, the last time I heard of this, it was expected to happen somewhere around the year 4000 A.D., which is several hundred years away.

Nostradamus predicted that the end of the world would come in 3797, but then he was two years early as to when the King of Terror would come from the sky.

[ch_123]

I thought we were done with the vegetarian debate,
omnivores=win!

I don't think cutting down on meat production/consumption and vegetarianism are equivalent. As far as I know, people in Western countries are eating more red meat than is healthy anyway.

Besides, isn't McDonalds alone one of the biggest producers/consumers of beef on the planet? Think about how many problems we would get rid of if we got rid of them...