Point of no return for climate action is point when Geoengineering will start

Cumulative CO2 emissions from 2015 onwards may not exceed 424 billion tons of carbon and that the point of no return (PNR) is 2035 for the policy scenario where the share of renewable and nuclear energy rises by 2% per year. If the risk tolerance is 67% chance of exceeding the-2 degree increase.

If renewables and nuclear energy increase by 5% per year then the point of no return will not be until 2045.

For the 1.5-degree target, the carbon budget is only 198 billion tons of carbon and there is no time left before starting to increase the renewable and nuclear energy share by 2% per year.

If the risk tolerance is tightened to 5%, the PNR is brought forward to 2022 for the 2K target and has been passed already for the 1.5-degree target. Including substantial negative emissions towards the end of the century delays the PNR from 2035 to 2042 for the 2K target and to 2026 for the 1.5-degree target.

World GDP will double by about 2040, so producing half of the emissions for the same GDP would only keep overall emissions the same as today (about 50 billion tons of CO2 equivalent per year).

Geoengineering would reduce the temperatures for the decades

Geoengineering can be done for a less than a few billion dollars per year. The cost has been estimated at about $5 to $8 billion per year. Not only is SRM relatively inexpensive, but we already have the technological pieces that assembled properly would inject the skies with particles that reflect sunlight back into space. For instance, a fleet of modified Boeing 747s could deliver the necessary payload. Advocates of geoengineering are not too concerned about developing the technology to effect SRM.

Among methods expected to have extensive potential impacts on the climate, the expectation applies mainly to the use of stratospheric aerosols (SAs), but is also attributed to a lesser degree to the use of space mirrors. Much debate about GE concentrates on aerosols, partly because of the existence of a partial analogue (volcanic eruptions, especially at Mount Pinatubo) but also because of the idea that the cost of aerosol deployment will be extremely low by comparison with climate mitigation technologies. One estimate reported by the Royal Society (2009) suggests that SAs might be around 1,000 times cheaper than average mitigation costs.

2017, research from an international team of atmospheric scientists published by Geophysical Research Letters investigates for the first time the possibility of using a “cocktail” of geoengineering tools to reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas not only cause the Earth to get hotter, they also affect weather patterns around the world. Management approaches need to address both warming and changes in the amount of rainfall and other forms of precipitation.

So-called solar geoengineering aims to cool the planet by deflecting some of the Sun’s incoming rays. Ideas for accomplishing this include the dispersion of light-scattering particles in the upper atmosphere, which would mimic the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions.

However, climate-modeling studies have shown that while this scattering of sunlight should reduce the warming caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would tend to reduce rainfall and other types of precipitation less than would be optimal.

Another approach involves thinning of high cirrus clouds, which are involved in regulating the amount of heat that escapes from the planet to outer space. This would also reduce warming, but would not correct the increase in precipitation caused by global warming.

One method reduces rain too much. Another method reduces rain too little.

The team—which includes Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, Long Cao and Lei Duan of Zhejiang University, and Govindasamy Bala of the Indian Institute of Science—used models to simulate what would happen if sunlight were scattered by particles at the same time as the cirrus clouds were thinned. They wanted to understand how effective this combined set of tools would be at reversing climate change, both globally and regionally.

Caldeira’s key contributions to science are his relatively early recognition of the threats posed by ocean acidification, his pioneering investigations into the environmental consequences of intentional intervention in the climate system (“geoengineering”), and the first peer-reviewed study to estimate near-zero-emission energy needs consistent with a 2°C climate stabilization target. Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon cycle/climate system. He also acted as an inventor for Intellectual Ventures, a Seattle-based invention and patent company headed up by Nathan Myhrvold.

“As far as I know, this is the first study to try to model using two different geoengineering approaches simultaneously to try to improve the overall fit of the technology,” Caldeira explained.

The good news is that their simulations showed that if both methods are deployed in concert, it would decrease warming to pre-industrial levels, as desired, and on a global level rainfall would also stay at pre-industrial levels. But the bad news is that while global average climate was largely restored, substantial differences remained locally, with some areas getting much wetter and other areas getting much drier.

“The same amount of rain fell around the globe in our models, but it fell in different places, which could create a big mismatch between what our economic infrastructure expects and what it will get,” Caldeira added. “More complicated geoengineering solutions would likely do a bit better, but the best solution is simply to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

Caldeira said that the international collaboration of scientists (including scientists from China and India) undertook this research as part of a broader effort aimed at understanding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of proposed strategies for reducing climate change and its impacts.

Geophysical Research Letters – Simultaneous stabilization of global temperature and precipitation through cocktail geoengineering

Abstract

Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a backup plan to offset some aspects of anthropogenic climate change if timely CO2 emission reductions fail to materialize. Modeling studies have shown that there are trade-offs between changes in temperature and hydrological cycle in response to solar geoengineering. Here we investigate the possibility of stabilizing both global mean temperature and precipitation simultaneously by combining two geoengineering approaches: stratospheric sulfate aerosol increase (SAI) that deflects sunlight to space and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) that enables more longwave radiation to escape to space. Using the slab ocean configuration of National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Earth System Model, we simulate SAI by uniformly adding sulfate aerosol in the upper stratosphere and CCT by uniformly increasing cirrus cloud ice particle falling speed. Under an idealized warming scenario of abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric CO2, we show that by combining appropriate amounts of SAI and CCT geoengineering, global mean (or land mean) temperature and precipitation can be restored simultaneously to preindustrial levels. However, compared to SAI, cocktail geoengineering by mixing SAI and CCT does not markedly improve the overall similarity between geoengineered climate and preindustrial climate on regional scales. Some optimal spatially nonuniform mixture of SAI with CCT might have the potential to better mitigate climate change at both the global and regional scales.

Plain Language Summary

Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide cause increase in both global temperatures and precipitation. Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a means to counteract this climate change by deliberately deflecting more sunlight from the Earth’s climate system. Numerous climate modeling studies have shown that proposed solar geoengineering schemes, such as injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, can cool climate, but the amount of precipitation change per degree of temperature change is greater than that for CO2, meaning that such proposals cannot simultaneously globally restore both average temperatures and average precipitation. It has also been suggested that the Earth could be cooled by thinning cirrus clouds, but the amount of precipitation change per degree of temperature change for this method is less than that for CO2. Our climate modeling study shows, for the first time, that a cocktail of these two approaches would decrease precipitation and temperature in the same ratios as they are increased by CO2, which would allow simultaneous recovery of preindustrial temperature and precipitation in a high CO2 world at global scale. We show that although the average temperatures and precipitation can be recovered at global scale, substantial differences between the geoengineered and natural climates persist at regional scale.

249 thoughts on “Point of no return for climate action is point when Geoengineering will start”

  1. What is the limit of iron fertilization in the oceans ? How high can you raise the quantity of plankton before the ocean runs out of other nutrients. Also I tried asking about iron fertilization of the oceans in an environmental forum a few days ago. The result was like sticking my hand in a blender, with the howls of outrage.

    Reply
  2. What is the limit of iron fertilization in the oceans ? How high can you raise the quantity of plankton before the ocean runs out of other nutrients. Also I tried asking about iron fertilization of the oceans in an environmental forum a few days ago. The result was like sticking my hand in a blender with the howls of outrage.

    Reply
  3. Yes, and what is even nicer is that you can reforest areas that have not had forests for thousands of years due to the climate being to dry. The trees will not need as much water due to the higher levels of CO2.

    Reply
  4. Yes and what is even nicer is that you can reforest areas that have not had forests for thousands of years due to the climate being to dry. The trees will not need as much water due to the higher levels of CO2.

    Reply
  5. What is the limit of iron fertilization in the oceans ? How high can you raise the quantity of plankton before the ocean runs out of other nutrients. Also I tried asking about iron fertilization of the oceans in an environmental forum a few days ago. The result was like sticking my hand in a blender, with the howls of outrage.

    Reply
  6. Yes, and what is even nicer is that you can reforest areas that have not had forests for thousands of years due to the climate being to dry. The trees will not need as much water due to the higher levels of CO2.

    Reply
  7. Don’t watch Fox News. And no amount of trolling for the Watermelons will make your attacks credible. ‘ Name just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says temperatures peaked in 1997!!’ Why? You will just a) deny it or b) denigrate the organization or c) spew ad hominems to me or d) all of the above.

    Reply
  8. Don’t watch Fox News.And no amount of trolling for the Watermelons will make your attacks credible. ‘ Name just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says temperatures peaked in 1997!!’Why? You will just a) deny it or b) denigrate the organization or c) spew ad hominems to me or d) all of the above.

    Reply
  9. So warren where did you get your numbers?? I know FOX news! A source of scientific information for fools. Name just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says temperatures peaked in 1997!! Don’t just use a one liner condescending comeback SUPPORT YOUR POSITION

    Reply
  10. So warren where did you get your numbers?? I know FOX news! A source of scientific information for fools. Name just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says temperatures peaked in 1997!! Don’t just use a one liner condescending comeback SUPPORT YOUR POSITION

    Reply
  11. We may be using different definitions of “established forest”. I mean a forest that has reached steady state, where the trees dying and rotting = new trees.

    Reply
  12. We may be using different definitions of established forest””. I mean a forest that has reached steady state”””” where the trees dying and rotting = new trees.”””

    Reply
  13. Don’t watch Fox News.

    And no amount of trolling for the Watermelons will make your attacks credible.

    ‘ Name just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says temperatures peaked in 1997!!’

    Why? You will just a) deny it or b) denigrate the organization or c) spew ad hominems to me or d) all of the above.

    Reply
  14. So warren where did you get your numbers?? I know FOX news! A source of scientific information for fools. Name just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says temperatures peaked in 1997!!

    Don’t just use a one liner condescending comeback SUPPORT YOUR POSITION

    Reply
  15. Repeat after me: Watermelons are not interested in ‘saving the environment’. They are interested in using the environment as a means to control people. AKA, the ‘new communism’. Their Useful Greentard activist soldiers are too stupid to see what is going on.

    Reply
  16. Repeat after me: Watermelons are not interested in ‘saving the environment’. They are interested in using the environment as a means to control people. AKA the ‘new communism’. Their Useful Greentard activist soldiers are too stupid to see what is going on.

    Reply
  17. Prolly 100# of dried leaves per 1m diameter mid-atlantic oak/maple/sycamore… It is something; like 2 tanks of gasoline equivalent. Of course the leaves oxidize and are consumed by fungi and become co2 again over several years.

    Reply
  18. Prolly 100# of dried leaves per 1m diameter mid-atlantic oak/maple/sycamore… It is something; like 2 tanks of gasoline equivalent. Of course the leaves oxidize and are consumed by fungi and become co2 again over several years.

    Reply
  19. You’d really want to enhance the contrails during the day, and suppress them at night, as daytime contrails reflect incoming heat more than they help retain outgoing heat, but there’s no incoming heat at night.

    Reply
  20. You’d really want to enhance the contrails during the day and suppress them at night as daytime contrails reflect incoming heat more than they help retain outgoing heat but there’s no incoming heat at night.

    Reply
  21. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe the earth is already in a warming stage, but eco whiners oppress any such considerations. Or maybe the survivors of the collapsed civilization will burn wood, coal and whatever they can find to burn in a much elevated rate. Which actually makes sense Few things are certain when talking of the future. Especially when it comes to humans. “Now why world population would suddenly collapse is a different question.” Many reasons. Overpopulation, overexploitation of biological resources. Successfully converting most of the precious resources into trash (the main goal of consumerist capitalism) Since a lot of (most of?) what we do is unmaintainable in the long term what else is there? Somehow I don’t see our civilization suddenly striving for moderation, balance and sustainability.

    Reply
  22. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe the earth is already in a warming stage but eco whiners oppress any such considerations.Or maybe the survivors of the collapsed civilization will burn wood coal and whatever they can find to burn in a much elevated rate. Which actually makes senseFew things are certain when talking of the future. Especially when it comes to humans.Now why world population would suddenly collapse is a different question.””Many reasons. Overpopulation”” overexploitation of biological resources. Successfully converting most of the precious resources into trash (the main goal of consumerist capitalism)Since a lot of (most of?) what we do is unmaintainable in the long term what else is there?Somehow I don’t see our civilization suddenly striving for moderation”” balance and sustainability.”””

    Reply
  23. If you think (for whatever reason) that the world population will collapse soon, then surely that in itself would produce the collapse in fuel use that would result in CO2 levels coming down. Now why world population would suddenly collapse is a different question.

    Reply
  24. If you think (for whatever reason) that the world population will collapse soon then surely that in itself would produce the collapse in fuel use that would result in CO2 levels coming down.Now why world population would suddenly collapse is a different question.

    Reply
  25. Geoengineering proposals. Will never work, and should never work. The AGW arguments are asymmetric. On one hand, global warming is bad for everyone so all efforts need to be made to globally reduce Co2, or mitigate. This implies that global cooling is good for everyone. Less rain and lower temperatures (e.g., crop yields), longer and harsher winters in the northern hemisphere might not be the best thing for everyone. Getting countries to agree on how much to cool and decreased precipitation is a non-starter. It’s easy to say we should all reduce the warming of the planet. It is not easy to say (and do) let’s make the planet colder and less wet. Global warming and global cooling both have winners and losers and they might not be the same for each scenario. Good luck.

    Reply
  26. Geoengineering proposals. Will never work and should never work. The AGW arguments are asymmetric. On one hand global warming is bad for everyone so all efforts need to be made to globally reduce Co2 or mitigate. This implies that global cooling is good for everyone. Less rain and lower temperatures (e.g. crop yields) longer and harsher winters in the northern hemisphere might not be the best thing for everyone. Getting countries to agree on how much to cool and decreased precipitation is a non-starter. It’s easy to say we should all reduce the warming of the planet. It is not easy to say (and do) let’s make the planet colder and less wet. Global warming and global cooling both have winners and losers and they might not be the same for each scenario. Good luck.

    Reply
  27. Mature trees were recently measured as packing away more carbon than younger, growing ones.” Do you have a link for that? I’m intrigued. And yes, you don’t want to clear the forest. What can be meters of leaf mulch can disappear in a fairly short time.

    Reply
  28. Mature trees were recently measured as packing away more carbon than younger” growing ones.””Do you have a link for that? I’m intrigued.And yes”””” you don’t want to clear the forest. What can be meters of leaf mulch can disappear in a fairly short time.”””

    Reply
  29. Don’t write foolishness if you don’t know anything. A warming temperature results in a wetter greener world. The opposite happens in a glacial periods, last time the sahara expanded dramatically. There won’t be droughts. “Then there is the environmental damage but morons think that will be OK since the earth will heal itself in a few 100 thousand years. ” Morons think that there would be something to be healed out of. The environmental damage As for coastal cities, I wont miss them. Not that they will be destroyed, only slowly moved. Since sea level rise won’t be happening in a snap of a finger. Well also have a hell of a lot land freed up in the south. “Hey genius exactly where did you get this misinformation. There is not one nationally recognized or international recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. ” ” It will also displace billions of people. ” Yeah, cry me a river. There are already billions more people than makes any sense. Which will quite certainly reduce (due to war, famine) before the climate has any chance of changing to a significant degree. You don’t even know what you’re arguing for you POS. Those are scientific fact that I stated. I didn’t deny anything, you just vomit your insults without a hint of intellect.

    Reply
  30. Don’t write foolishness if you don’t know anything. A warming temperature results in a wetter greener world. The opposite happens in a glacial periods last time the sahara expanded dramatically. There won’t be droughts.Then there is the environmental damage but morons think that will be OK since the earth will heal itself in a few 100 thousand years. “”Morons think that there would be something to be healed out of. The environmental damage As for coastal cities”” I wont miss them. Not that they will be destroyed”” only slowly moved. Since sea level rise won’t be happening in a snap of a finger. Well also have a hell of a lot land freed up in the south.””””Hey genius exactly where did you get this misinformation. There is not one nationally recognized or international recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. “””””””” It will also displace billions of people. “”””Yeah”” cry me a river. There are already billions more people than makes any sense. Which will quite certainly reduce (due to war famine) before the climate has any chance of changing to a significant degree.You don’t even know what you’re arguing for you POS. Those are scientific fact that I stated. I didn’t deny anything”” you just vomit your insults without a hint of intellect.”””

    Reply
  31. A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free.” As it should, as it normally is when not in an ice age. It just shows that our planet is not even back to its natural state yet. “However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.'” Of little consequence. It just means that things happen more quickly

    Reply
  32. A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum” the planet was essentially ice-free.””As it should”””” as it normally is when not in an ice age. It just shows that our planet is not even back to its natural state yet.””””However”” the amount of released carbon according to a recent study”” suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.'””””Of little consequence. It just means that things happen more quickly”””””””

    Reply
  33. I’ve heard that the most marked effect of the three day shutdown of commercial aircraft was a 2 degree C greater difference between day and night temperatures. ‘In a 2005 paper, physicist Robert Noland of Imperial College London suggested that restricting airliners to 31,000 feet, and 24,000 feet in winter, could reduce the formation of contrails. Though lower-flying planes would be less fuel-efficient, Noland argued that the increased fuel consumption would be more than made up for by less contrail-linked clouds as a cause of global warming.’ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/

    Reply
  34. I’ve heard that the most marked effect of the three day shutdown of commercial aircraft was a 2 degree C greater difference between day and night temperatures. ‘In a 2005 paper physicist Robert Noland of Imperial College London suggested that restricting airliners to 31000 feet and 24000 feet in winter could reduce the formation of contrails. Though lower-flying planes would be less fuel-efficient Noland argued that the increased fuel consumption would be more than made up for by less contrail-linked clouds as a cause of global warming.’ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/

    Reply
  35. Wiki on the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum -‘The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming. A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free. However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.’ There was a mass extinction of marine life. It’s true that during the whole period, there was a major radiation of mammals, but that probably means things got too tough for the existing species.

    Reply
  36. Wiki on the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum -‘The entire warm period lasted for about 200000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses the first lasting less than 2000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming. A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum the planet was essentially ice-free. However the amount of released carbon according to a recent study suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.’ There was a mass extinction of marine life. It’s true that during the whole period there was a major radiation of mammals but that probably means things got too tough for the existing species.”

    Reply
  37. Ironically, the high sulfur bunker oil burnt by ships, besides being filthy and making CO2, could also be cooling the planet. Sulfur reflects sunlight, as do the clouds which form in the wake of cargo ships, condensing around their exhaust particles. You can see their tracks criss-crossing the oceans in satellite photos.

    Reply
  38. Ironically the high sulfur bunker oil burnt by ships besides being filthy and making CO2 could also be cooling the planet. Sulfur reflects sunlight as do the clouds which form in the wake of cargo ships condensing around their exhaust particles. You can see their tracks criss-crossing the oceans in satellite photos.

    Reply
  39. Your numbers are a bit low. Nuclear only makes about ten percent of world electricity, hydro a little more, so to get rid of coal and gas from power plants, you’d need seven or eight times more reactors than we have now. Then add the couple of billion people who are underpowered now, and the eighty percent of the energy we use which is not electricity, you’re looking at well over 15,000 reactors ( and that’s ‘Gigawatt’, not ‘megawatt’. Palo Verde has three x 1.3 GW reactors.)

    Reply
  40. Your numbers are a bit low. Nuclear only makes about ten percent of world electricity hydro a little more so to get rid of coal and gas from power plants you’d need seven or eight times more reactors than we have now. Then add the couple of billion people who are underpowered now and the eighty percent of the energy we use which is not electricity you’re looking at well over 15000 reactors ( and that’s ‘Gigawatt’ not ‘megawatt’. Palo Verde has three x 1.3 GW reactors.)

    Reply
  41. Mature trees were recently measured as packing away more carbon than younger, growing ones. And tropical forests can store huge amounts of carbon in peaty soils. Which is all released when the bush is cleared, and the soil dries out.

    Reply
  42. Mature trees were recently measured as packing away more carbon than younger growing ones. And tropical forests can store huge amounts of carbon in peaty soils. Which is all released when the bush is cleared and the soil dries out.

    Reply
  43. Antarctica’s high plateau is so cold and high altitude, and the air above it is so dry, that the surface can actually be colder than the tropopause. So any extra CO2 would slow down net heat flow from above down to the ground, leaving more to escape into space, and cooling the planet. That only works there, though – everywhere else, CO2 raises the altitude at which infrared leaves the system to higher, cooler levels, and more heat stays down with us. The ice sheets are being melted from below, by warmer sea water, not from above.

    Reply
  44. Antarctica’s high plateau is so cold and high altitude and the air above it is so dry that the surface can actually be colder than the tropopause. So any extra CO2 would slow down net heat flow from above down to the ground leaving more to escape into space and cooling the planet. That only works there though – everywhere else CO2 raises the altitude at which infrared leaves the system to higher cooler levels and more heat stays down with us. The ice sheets are being melted from below by warmer sea water not from above.

    Reply
  45. Repeat after me: Watermelons are not interested in ‘saving the environment’. They are interested in using the environment as a means to control people. AKA, the ‘new communism’. Their Useful Greentard activist soldiers are too stupid to see what is going on.

    Reply
  46. Prolly 100# of dried leaves per 1m diameter mid-atlantic oak/maple/sycamore… It is something; like 2 tanks of gasoline equivalent. Of course the leaves oxidize and are consumed by fungi and become co2 again over several years.

    Reply
  47. I think you are confusing the air pollution (sulphur compounds, unburned hydrocarbons) with the CO2 output. The first category is affected by ships using cheap, dirty bunker oil. The second is just a matter of how many tonnes of fuel are burned.

    Reply
  48. I think you are confusing the air pollution (sulphur compounds unburned hydrocarbons) with the CO2 output. The first category is affected by ships using cheap dirty bunker oil. The second is just a matter of how many tonnes of fuel are burned.

    Reply
  49. Trees only absorb energy while they are growing from a non-forest starting point. Once a forest is established the rate of biomass remains constant, and hence no net CO2 is absorbed. The way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere is regular logging where the wood is retained and preserved as a solid storage medium. So logging that results in ever growing amounts of furniture, housing, other buildings, wooden structures, etc. Even better would be timber that does not decay, such as Huon Pine or something, that can lie in a swamp for literally centuries before starting to rot. The problem being that such tough, resistant woods tend to be very slow growing. And of course huge wood plantations use up lots of land, and water. The solution: Genetic engineering of giant, fast growing, hard, rot proof timber, mangroves that can establish coastal forests to live on seawater while providing extensive sheltered water for marine life. Being giant they will create more good timber, and look cool, and can push out to greater water depths thus expanding the area for the forests to live in.

    Reply
  50. Trees only absorb energy while they are growing from a non-forest starting point.Once a forest is established the rate of biomass remains constant and hence no net CO2 is absorbed.The way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere is regular logging where the wood is retained and preserved as a solid storage medium.So logging that results in ever growing amounts of furniture housing other buildings wooden structures etc.Even better would be timber that does not decay such as Huon Pine or something that can lie in a swamp for literally centuries before starting to rot. The problem being that such tough resistant woods tend to be very slow growing.And of course huge wood plantations use up lots of land and water.The solution: Genetic engineering of giant fast growing hard rot proof timber mangroves that can establish coastal forests to live on seawater while providing extensive sheltered water for marine life. Being giant they will create more good timber and look cool and can push out to greater water depths thus expanding the area for the forests to live in.

    Reply
  51. Very difficult to catch someone keying a car when your car is located far away from cameras and the guy moves close to it .

    Reply
  52. You’d really want to enhance the contrails during the day, and suppress them at night, as daytime contrails reflect incoming heat more than they help retain outgoing heat, but there’s no incoming heat at night.

    Reply
  53. What a load of BS. Point to a single review of the literature published in a reputable journal demonstrating that AGW is not widely accepted amongst climate scientists. You also demonstrate an ignorance for how science works. The preferred conclusion is that which is most consistent with the available data. No proving necessary. Hence we are quite confident that other stars represent suns like our own without having to go there and get burnt up by one. We are also confident the sun will rise tomorrow because we do not see any reason to doubt this and we assume the laws of physics will hold in the near future. It certainly isn’t proven however. Try learning what science is before commenting on it.

    Reply
  54. What a load of BS.Point to a single review of the literature published in a reputable journal demonstrating that AGW is not widely accepted amongst climate scientists. You also demonstrate an ignorance for how science works. The preferred conclusion is that which is most consistent with the available data. No proving necessary. Hence we are quite confident that other stars represent suns like our own without having to go there and get burnt up by one. We are also confident the sun will rise tomorrow because we do not see any reason to doubt this and we assume the laws of physics will hold in the near future. It certainly isn’t proven however. Try learning what science is before commenting on it.

    Reply
  55. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe the earth is already in a warming stage, but eco whiners oppress any such considerations.
    Or maybe the survivors of the collapsed civilization will burn wood, coal and whatever they can find to burn in a much elevated rate. Which actually makes sense

    Few things are certain when talking of the future. Especially when it comes to humans.

    “Now why world population would suddenly collapse is a different question.”

    Many reasons. Overpopulation, overexploitation of biological resources. Successfully converting most of the precious resources into trash (the main goal of consumerist capitalism)

    Since a lot of (most of?) what we do is unmaintainable in the long term what else is there?
    Somehow I don’t see our civilization suddenly striving for moderation, balance and sustainability.

    Reply
  56. If you think (for whatever reason) that the world population will collapse soon, then surely that in itself would produce the collapse in fuel use that would result in CO2 levels coming down.

    Now why world population would suddenly collapse is a different question.

    Reply
  57. Geoengineering proposals. Will never work, and should never work. The AGW arguments are asymmetric. On one hand, global warming is bad for everyone so all efforts need to be made to globally reduce Co2, or mitigate. This implies that global cooling is good for everyone. Less rain and lower temperatures (e.g., crop yields), longer and harsher winters in the northern hemisphere might not be the best thing for everyone. Getting countries to agree on how much to cool and decreased precipitation is a non-starter.

    It’s easy to say we should all reduce the warming of the planet. It is not easy to say (and do) let’s make the planet colder and less wet. Global warming and global cooling both have winners and losers and they might not be the same for each scenario. Good luck.

    Reply
  58. “Mature trees were recently measured as packing away more carbon than younger, growing ones.”

    Do you have a link for that? I’m intrigued.

    And yes, you don’t want to clear the forest. What can be meters of leaf mulch can disappear in a fairly short time.

    Reply
  59. Don’t write foolishness if you don’t know anything. A warming temperature results in a wetter greener world. The opposite happens in a glacial periods, last time the sahara expanded dramatically. There won’t be droughts.

    “Then there is the environmental damage but morons think that will be OK since the earth will heal itself in a few 100 thousand years. ”

    Morons think that there would be something to be healed out of. The environmental damage

    As for coastal cities, I wont miss them. Not that they will be destroyed, only slowly moved. Since sea level rise won’t be happening in a snap of a finger. Well also have a hell of a lot land freed up in the south.

    “Hey genius exactly where did you get this misinformation. There is not one nationally recognized or international recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. ”

    ” It will also displace billions of people. ”

    Yeah, cry me a river. There are already billions more people than makes any sense. Which will quite certainly reduce (due to war, famine) before the climate has any chance of changing to a significant degree.

    You don’t even know what you’re arguing for you POS. Those are scientific fact that I stated. I didn’t deny anything, you just vomit your insults without a hint of intellect.

    Reply
  60. “A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free.”

    As it should, as it normally is when not in an ice age. It just shows that our planet is not even back to its natural state yet.

    “However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.'”

    Of little consequence. It just means that things happen more quickly

    Reply
  61. I’ve heard that the most marked effect of the three day shutdown of commercial aircraft was a 2 degree C greater difference between day and night temperatures.
    ‘In a 2005 paper, physicist Robert Noland of Imperial College London suggested that restricting airliners to 31,000 feet, and 24,000 feet in winter, could reduce the formation of contrails. Though lower-flying planes would be less fuel-efficient, Noland argued that the increased fuel consumption would be more than made up for by less contrail-linked clouds as a cause of global warming.’ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/

    Reply
  62. Wiki on the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum -‘The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming. A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free. However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.’ There was a mass extinction of marine life. It’s true that during the whole period, there was a major radiation of mammals, but that probably means things got too tough for the existing species.

    Reply
  63. FROM NOAA where did you get your BS Numbers?? Top 10 warmest years (NOAA) (1880–2017) Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F 1 2016 0.94 1.69 2 2015 0.90 1.62 3 2017 0.84 1.51 4 2014 0.74 1.33 5 2010 0.70 1.26 6 2013 0.66 1.19 7 2005 0.65 1.17 8 2009 0.64 1.15 9 1998 0.63 1.13 10 2012 0.62 1.12

    Reply
  64. FROM NOAA where did you get your BS Numbers??Top 10 warmest years (NOAA) (1880–2017) Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F1 2016 0.94 1.692 2015 0.90 1.623 2017 0.84 1.514 2014 0.74 1.335 2010 0.70 1.266 2013 0.66 1.197 2005 0.65 1.178 2009 0.64 1.159 1998 0.63 1.1310 2012 0.62 1.12″

    Reply
  65. Ironically, the high sulfur bunker oil burnt by ships, besides being filthy and making CO2, could also be cooling the planet. Sulfur reflects sunlight, as do the clouds which form in the wake of cargo ships, condensing around their exhaust particles. You can see their tracks criss-crossing the oceans in satellite photos.

    Reply
  66. Your numbers are a bit low. Nuclear only makes about ten percent of world electricity, hydro a little more, so to get rid of coal and gas from power plants, you’d need seven or eight times more reactors than we have now. Then add the couple of billion people who are underpowered now, and the eighty percent of the energy we use which is not electricity, you’re looking at well over 15,000 reactors ( and that’s ‘Gigawatt’, not ‘megawatt’. Palo Verde has three x 1.3 GW reactors.)

    Reply
  67. Mature trees were recently measured as packing away more carbon than younger, growing ones. And tropical forests can store huge amounts of carbon in peaty soils. Which is all released when the bush is cleared, and the soil dries out.

    Reply
  68. Antarctica’s high plateau is so cold and high altitude, and the air above it is so dry, that the surface can actually be colder than the tropopause. So any extra CO2 would slow down net heat flow from above down to the ground, leaving more to escape into space, and cooling the planet. That only works there, though – everywhere else, CO2 raises the altitude at which infrared leaves the system to higher, cooler levels, and more heat stays down with us. The ice sheets are being melted from below, by warmer sea water, not from above.

    Reply
  69. 40% of that is coal use, which would be uneconomic to use in two thirds of existing coal plants just on a fuel basis (with a 100% paid for coal plant) at a carbon tax of $40 per tonne of CO2. Just about all methane leaks would be remediated at that price. And the 1/3 of high efficiency coal plants remaining would eventually be outcompeted by alternatives over a period of 20-30 years (probably sooner; technology trends have exceeded most expectations). $40 also stops most egregiously cheap to remediate land change CO2 (e.g. clear cutting forest for low profit subsistence agriculture). So assuming the world gets on board with a $40 carbon tax and enforced it that’s all that is needed. There is way too much hysteria on both sides of this issue.

    Reply
  70. 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of that is coal use which would be uneconomic to use in two thirds of existing coal plants just on a fuel basis (with a 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} paid for coal plant) at a carbon tax of $40 per tonne of CO2. Just about all methane leaks would be remediated at that price. And the 1/3 of high efficiency coal plants remaining would eventually be outcompeted by alternatives over a period of 20-30 years (probably sooner; technology trends have exceeded most expectations).$40 also stops most egregiously cheap to remediate land change CO2 (e.g. clear cutting forest for low profit subsistence agriculture).So assuming the world gets on board with a $40 carbon tax and enforced it that’s all that is needed. There is way too much hysteria on both sides of this issue.”

    Reply
  71. Humans can spend a lot more money and ENERGY…. Exactly, You hit it right on both counts. Spend more money for energy, so more money to exist in essence because energy will cost so much more. The saddest part of which is the number of humans who don’t have energy now and will be faced with high cost energy when they have no extra money to spend. To me, regardless on how you stand on the honesty of the science on AGW this one aspect of cost and its resultant deniability of energy to poor should make you rethink your premise. Lastly I hope you understand the notion of Science, Theory, and Belief. The science of AGW is a theory, not proved, not widely accepted by those who are “in the field”. The “science” of AGW is a belief held by a very vocal and adamant group who will try every trick, every possible rue to pollute the actual Science of understanding our surroundings.

    Reply
  72. Humans can spend a lot more money and ENERGY…. Exactly You hit it right on both counts. Spend more money for energy so more money to exist in essence because energy will cost so much more. The saddest part of which is the number of humans who don’t have energy now and will be faced with high cost energy when they have no extra money to spend. To me regardless on how you stand on the honesty of the science on AGW this one aspect of cost and its resultant deniability of energy to poor should make you rethink your premise. Lastly I hope you understand the notion of Science Theory and Belief. The science of AGW is a theory not proved not widely accepted by those who are in the field””. The “”””science”””” of AGW is a belief held by a very vocal and adamant group who will try every trick”””” every possible rue to pollute the actual Science of understanding our surroundings.”””

    Reply
  73. Try reforetation first, it does not involve adding or substraction something from our natural environment but restoring something that meant to exist in our environment so no side effects are expected. Also it has been shown that trees environment as a good effect on the mood.

    Reply
  74. Try reforetation first it does not involve adding or substraction something from our natural environment but restoring something that meant to exist in our environment so no side effects are expected. Also it has been shown that trees environment as a good effect on the mood.

    Reply
  75. The CargoMax container ships plying the Pacific Ocean vastly outnumber the tanker fleet. Start the clean-up trend where the worst pollution originates.

    Reply
  76. The CargoMax container ships plying the Pacific Ocean vastly outnumber the tanker fleet. Start the clean-up trend where the worst pollution originates.

    Reply
  77. YAWN” Not too smart are you. The sea levels will rise about 200 feet destroying every coastal city in the world. It will also displace billions of people. Think Bangladesh land where 170 million people are going to move. It will also flood millions of miles of land around the world. Then there will be the droughts and the floods and the areas that are no longer habitable. Lets not even think about the impact of the economies and the wars for arable lands and water and habitable spaces. Then there is the environmental damage but morons think that will be OK since the earth will heal itself in a few 100 thousand years. Hey genius exactly where did you get this misinformation. There is not one nationally recognized or international recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. So name one and if you can’t then ask yourself who loaded your head with this crap! BTW FOX news and Rush Limbaugh and American Thinkers etc are not valid scientific sources.

    Reply
  78. YAWN”” Not too smart are you. The sea levels will rise about 200 feet destroying every coastal city in the world. It will also displace billions of people. Think Bangladesh land where 170 million people are going to move. It will also flood millions of miles of land around the world. Then there will be the droughts and the floods and the areas that are no longer habitable. Lets not even think about the impact of the economies and the wars for arable lands and water and habitable spaces. Then there is the environmental damage but morons think that will be OK since the earth will heal itself in a few 100 thousand years. Hey genius exactly where did you get this misinformation. There is not one nationally recognized or international recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. So name one and if you can’t then ask yourself who loaded your head with this crap! BTW FOX news and Rush Limbaugh and American Thinkers etc are not valid scientific sources.”””

    Reply
  79. And when they catch you they will use your face as a foot ball. Then when the police arrive they will find that you were responsible for the keying around the area. They will then convict and put you into jail. At that point you will be used as a comfort prisoner. Not a very wise approach if you ask me.

    Reply
  80. And when they catch you they will use your face as a foot ball. Then when the police arrive they will find that you were responsible for the keying around the area. They will then convict and put you into jail. At that point you will be used as a comfort prisoner. Not a very wise approach if you ask me.

    Reply
  81. An experiment was done in the Atlantic and it did show a burst of plankton growth. The question is did it really remove carbon and by how much. I agree before we spend billions on modified 747s lets look at other alternatives. And for goodness sake lets fund MSRs and get them deployed.

    Reply
  82. An experiment was done in the Atlantic and it did show a burst of plankton growth. The question is did it really remove carbon and by how much. I agree before we spend billions on modified 747s lets look at other alternatives. And for goodness sake lets fund MSRs and get them deployed.

    Reply
  83. Actually, I see it the other way Eating animals = crime Polluting the planet = crime Fighting against crimes = doing the right thing A different point of view, maybe .. .. and I have no problems with red shirts, or blacks or white shirts, or yellow Just with people harming animals, the planet

    Reply
  84. Actually I see it the other way Eating animals = crime Polluting the planet = crime Fighting against crimes = doing the right thing A different point of view maybe .. .. and I have no problems with red shirts or blacks or white shirts or yellow Just with people harming animals the planet

    Reply
  85. I am a tall and bulky man , I do not know how tall are you but if you take out the tire iron of your car the one landing in hospital may not be me. Let alone that you have to catch the guy first, and keying a car, if done properly, is very very difficult to detect. Just keep an eye on cameras, be sure to have a way out , do not push the key in the metal too quick, and do not apply too much pressure (if you use a sharpened knife you wont need to appky too much pressure)

    Reply
  86. I am a tall and bulky man I do not know how tall are you but if you take out the tire iron of your car the one landing in hospital may not be me. Let alone that you have to catch the guy first and keying a car if done properly is very very difficult to detect. Just keep an eye on cameras be sure to have a way out do not push the key in the metal too quick and do not apply too much pressure (if you use a sharpened knife you wont need to appky too much pressure)

    Reply
  87. Yes, but the money that people will need to spend to repaint cars would be taken from their fuel (gas) budget resulting in a net *decrease* of fuel consumption and therefore of emissions of CO2. As said above, the nice way is not going to work Oil and coal lobbies are way too strong !

    Reply
  88. Yes but the money that people will need to spend to repaint cars would be taken from their fuel (gas) budget resulting in a net *decrease* of fuel consumption and therefore of emissions of CO2. As said above the nice way is not going to work Oil and coal lobbies are way too strong !

    Reply
  89. Partly true. But you can check data from the past and see that Co2 emissions and rising temperatures go hand in hand Coincidence? Not quite. And what about all the data that show that temperatures have been *rising* in the part 50 years? And what about the South Pole and Greenald becoming greener and greener ? Coincidence again?

    Reply
  90. Partly true. But you can check data from the past and see that Co2 emissions and rising temperatures go hand in hand Coincidence? Not quite. And what about all the data that show that temperatures have been *rising* in the part 50 years? And what about the South Pole and Greenald becoming greener and greener ? Coincidence again?

    Reply
  91. He’s become like a monkey in the Zoo: the monkey realizing she has no influence over her gawkers, throws shît at the crowd. Just read an article about treating psychopathic teens … in an effort to “cure” them. Oddly… like monkeys… the affected teens throw shît and urine at their guardians when they’re in “solitary” for misbehavior. The problem is Lucca’s adopted the idea as an “eco-warrior” that direct action needs to happen. That passing judgement is his right to exercise, and being the “judge, jury and executioner” then follows. It is the downfall of all radicals. Fascism, actually. “We don’t like your red shirt. Too late to take it off. We’ll just beat you up since you’re guilty. Goons… go.” Judging “the book by its cover”. Keying a SUV because it is a SUV. Keying a family’s car at McDonalds because they’re eating animal parts. Keying one’s neighbor’s car because he didn’t separate every bit of scrap into bins. Petty vandalism, because Lucca can. Throwing shît because he is otherwise powerless. Sitting in his tree laughing at all the people who are mighty irritated by his caprine behavior. Fascism. Its a disease. GoatGiuy

    Reply
  92. He’s become like a monkey in the Zoo: the monkey realizing she has no influence over her gawkers throws shît at the crowd. Just read an article about treating psychopathic teens … in an effort to cure”” them. Oddly… like monkeys… the affected teens throw shît and urine at their guardians when they’re in “”””solitary”””” for misbehavior.The problem is Lucca’s adopted the idea as an “”””eco-warrior”””” that direct action needs to happen. That passing judgement is his right to exercise”””” and being the “”””judge”””” jury and executioner”””” then follows. It is the downfall of all radicals. Fascism”””” actually. “”””We don’t like your red shirt. Too late to take it off. We’ll just beat you up since you’re guilty. Goons… go.”””” Judging “”””the book by its cover””””. Keying a SUV because it is a SUV. Keying a family’s car at McDonalds because they’re eating animal parts. Keying one’s neighbor’s car because he didn’t separate every bit of scrap into bins.Petty vandalism”””” because Lucca can. Throwing shît because he is otherwise powerless. Sitting in his tree laughing at all the people who are mighty irritated by his caprine behavior. Fascism.Its a disease.GoatGiuy”””””””

    Reply
  93. It won’t last long. Another 5 or 10 years of them having to adjust the data to agree with the theory and no one but the moon landing hoax kooks will take them seriously.

    Reply
  94. It won’t last long. Another 5 or 10 years of them having to adjust the data to agree with the theory and no one but the moon landing hoax kooks will take them seriously.

    Reply
  95. Just amazing. Based on models which have entirely been unable to “predict the near future” in the last 20 years, but relying on these same models to predict an again near future of The End of The World If We Don’t Do Something… we’re supposed to cobble together a fleet of 747s (how ironic), load them up with sulfur dioxide, and churn the stratosphere with them, to simulate what Big Honkin’ Volcanoes occasionally do. Wait, what? Mmmm… this isn’t too dissimilar from the 1950s practice — widely done! — of removing all the teeth from one’s mouth if you had more than a few cavities. “Just take ’em all out, and use dentures. They’re great!” Mmmm… that didn’t work out so well, did it? Well, there’s good news, I guess: the world of policy-and-action agencies is a miasma of indecision. No single agency has even a small fraction of the money needed even to start, let alone massively roll out such plans. Oh, the pölïtical megalomaniacs rub their hands in anticipation of controlling the pursestrings of a multi-trillion dollar program; millions of people would be grafted / employed to dot all those i’s, cross all those t’s, make reports, chart phoney-baloney results; imagine the endless stream of freshly minted PhD’s that’d come out! I’ve advocated a minimal amount of geoëngineering in the past: oceanic iron fertilization … I’ve found that it isn’t that large of an opportunity: most of the ocean doesn’t have the necessary mix of other minerals to afford much phytoplankton bloom growth if fertilized just with iron. To fertilize with “what it needs” is far more costly. The idea was “cheap, and works, and makes a byproduct called ‘food’ in abundance”. Since it is such a well contained cycle, and so easy to do (“boat” plus “waste iron sulfate” plus “a crew & fuel”), I really think it ought to be. At least to prove the science. As it is, today, there are now billions of fish being grown in the ocean in “fish farms”. Think of what kind of experiment that is, at som

    Reply
  96. Just amazing.Based on models which have entirely been unable to predict the near future”” in the last 20 years”” but relying on these same models to predict an again near future of The End of The World If We Don’t Do Something… we’re supposed to cobble together a fleet of 747s (how ironic) load them up with sulfur dioxide and churn the stratosphere with them to simulate what Big Honkin’ Volcanoes occasionally do. Wait”” what?Mmmm… this isn’t too dissimilar from the 1950s practice — widely done! — of removing all the teeth from one’s mouth if you had more than a few cavities. “”””Just take ’em all out”””” and use dentures. They’re great!”””” Mmmm… that didn’t work out so well”” did it?Well there’s good news I guess: the world of policy-and-action agencies is a miasma of indecision. No single agency has even a small fraction of the money needed even to start let alone massively roll out such plans. Oh the pölïtical megalomaniacs rub their hands in anticipation of controlling the pursestrings of a multi-trillion dollar program; millions of people would be grafted / employed to dot all those i’s cross all those t’s make reports”” chart phoney-baloney results; imagine the endless stream of freshly minted PhD’s that’d come out!I’ve advocated a minimal amount of geoëngineering in the past: oceanic iron fertilization … I’ve found that it isn’t that large of an opportunity: most of the ocean doesn’t have the necessary mix of other minerals to afford much phytoplankton bloom growth if fertilized just with iron. To fertilize with “”””what it needs”””” is far more costly. The idea was “”””cheap”” and works”” and makes a byproduct called ‘food’ in abundance””””. Since it is such a well contained cycle”””” and so easy to do (“”””boat”””” plus “”””waste iron sulfate”””” plus “”””a crew & fuel””””)”” I really think it ought to be. At least to prove the science. As it is today”” there are now billions of fish being grown in the ocean in “”””fish farms”

    Reply
  97. On 9-11, the entire air travel system in the US got shut down. It was a natural experiment. The absence of high altitude contrails actually measurably shifted the temperatures in America upwards a bit. It has been proposed to add to aviation fuels additives which would enhance the effect of contrails, preserving the contrails longer, and thus causing some cooling. (But only during the day. At night they have the opposite effect.) What’s illustrated, thus, is one proposed geoengineering technique.

    Reply
  98. On 9-11 the entire air travel system in the US got shut down. It was a natural experiment. The absence of high altitude contrails actually measurably shifted the temperatures in America upwards a bit.It has been proposed to add to aviation fuels additives which would enhance the effect of contrails preserving the contrails longer and thus causing some cooling. (But only during the day. At night they have the opposite effect.) What’s illustrated thus is one proposed geoengineering technique.

    Reply
  99. I think you are confusing the air pollution (sulphur compounds, unburned hydrocarbons) with the CO2 output. The first category is affected by ships using cheap, dirty bunker oil. The second is just a matter of how many tonnes of fuel are burned.

    Reply
  100. Trees only absorb energy while they are growing from a non-forest starting point.
    Once a forest is established the rate of biomass remains constant, and hence no net CO2 is absorbed.
    The way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere is regular logging where the wood is retained and preserved as a solid storage medium.
    So logging that results in ever growing amounts of furniture, housing, other buildings, wooden structures, etc.

    Even better would be timber that does not decay, such as Huon Pine or something, that can lie in a swamp for literally centuries before starting to rot. The problem being that such tough, resistant woods tend to be very slow growing.

    And of course huge wood plantations use up lots of land, and water.

    The solution: Genetic engineering of giant, fast growing, hard, rot proof timber, mangroves that can establish coastal forests to live on seawater while providing extensive sheltered water for marine life. Being giant they will create more good timber, and look cool, and can push out to greater water depths thus expanding the area for the forests to live in.

    Reply
  101. Human can spend a lot more money and energy on renewable energy and other inventions to resolve the climate change problems, but the Americans and their imperialists partners have to drag rest of the world into destructive arm conflicts, arm race and trade wars to prevent others pouring resources into getting solutions for the climate change crisis. American said they are democracy, whatever they do, it is necessary with good intention including exterminating human species.

    Reply
  102. Human can spend a lot more money and energy on renewable energy and other inventions to resolve the climate change problems but the Americans and their imperialists partners have to drag rest of the world into destructive arm conflicts arm race and trade wars to prevent others pouring resources into getting solutions for the climate change crisis. American said they are democracy whatever they do it is necessary with good intention including exterminating human species.

    Reply
  103. Repainting the SUV increases CO2 emissions, as would your funeral. My solution to decrease emissions of CO2 is to allow owners of PV, wind, and other non CO2 emitting energy sources to keep the proceeds of their equipment by prohibiting permitting fees, inspection fees, property taxes on generating assets, and income taxes on proceeds from sales of energy to the grid, and breaking up the utilities into generation, and transmission companies. Carrots are preferable to sticks, and taxation is too high anyway.

    Reply
  104. Repainting the SUV increases CO2 emissions as would your funeral.My solution to decrease emissions of CO2 is to allow owners of PV wind and other non CO2 emitting energy sources to keep the proceeds of their equipment by prohibiting permitting fees inspection fees property taxes on generating assets and income taxes on proceeds from sales of energy to the grid and breaking up the utilities into generation and transmission companies.Carrots are preferable to sticks and taxation is too high anyway.

    Reply
  105. Your solution is as much economic warfare as what you try to avoid. Your solution favors countries with small agricultural sectors, and those that are technologically sophisticated. Meat exports can also be considered water exports, since the importing country does not need the water to raise the livestock.

    Reply
  106. Your solution is as much economic warfare as what you try to avoid. Your solution favors countries with small agricultural sectors and those that are technologically sophisticated. Meat exports can also be considered water exports since the importing country does not need the water to raise the livestock.

    Reply
  107. At $457 per tonne, the cost would be about $6.29 trillion to remove CO2 with ocean fertilization. That is about 8.3% of world GDP.

    Reply
  108. At $457 per tonne the cost would be about $6.29 trillion to remove CO2 with ocean fertilization.That is about 8.3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of world GDP.

    Reply
  109. IOW – there is not cheap or simple way to sequester excess CO2. No silver bullet. They are all extremely expensive, taking up a significant percent of world GDP.

    Reply
  110. IOW – there is not cheap or simple way to sequester excess CO2. No silver bullet. They are all extremely expensive taking up a significant percent of world GDP.

    Reply
  111. Theoretically, CO2 effects temperatures at high latitudes, and other low humidity areas more than other areas, because in most parts of the planet the effect of water vapor swamps that of CO2. Cloud thinning at high latitudes, and over deserts, and high altitude mountains would yield results closer to the natural state. Of course iron fertilization of the oceans would reduce CO2 directly, as well as give the whales something to eat.

    Reply
  112. Theoretically CO2 effects temperatures at high latitudes and other low humidity areas more than other areas because in most parts of the planet the effect of water vapor swamps that of CO2. Cloud thinning at high latitudes and over deserts and high altitude mountains would yield results closer to the natural state.Of course iron fertilization of the oceans would reduce CO2 directly as well as give the whales something to eat.

    Reply
  113. How about ocean fertilization with iron sulfate? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264437659_A_method_for_estimating_the_cost_to_sequester_carbon_dioxide_by_delivering_iron_to_the_ocean Abstract: The need to find economical methods of CO2 sequestration is now urgent. Ocean iron fertilisation has been suggested as a low cost mitigation option to capture and store carbon. However, previous methods of estimating the cost fail to account for many of the losses and offsets occurring over the storage period. A method for calculating the net carbon stored from iron fertilisation of high nutrient low chlorophyll ocean regions is provided. Ship based fertilisation of the Southern Ocean is considered as a case study, on average, a single fertilisation is found to result in a net sequestration of 0.01 t C km–2 for 100 years at a cost of US$457 per tonne CO2. Previous estimates of cost underestimate the economic challenge of distributing low concentrations of iron over large areas of the ocean surface, and the subsequent loss processes that result in only a small net storage of carbon per km2 fertilised. Technologies that could lower the cost are discussed Fundamentally, the problem lies in the vast amount of ocean surface that needs to be seeded and the small fraction of carbon that remains stored away from the atmosphere for 100 years or more after considering the offsets. The high turn over of nitrogen in iron fertilisation due to high ventilation provides a considerable risk of doing harm rather than good if N2O production has been underestimated. Although export fraction is found to be a sensitive parameter it is largely outside the control of the project operators, as are the majority of loss terms. When considering the cost of ocean iron fertilisation the loss terms due to the processes detailed here must be taken into account. The uncertainty is of similar magnitude to the expected net carbon stored, posing potential problems for certification of carbon cre

    Reply
  114. How about ocean fertilization with iron sulfate?https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264437659_A_method_for_estimating_the_cost_to_sequester_carbon_dioxide_by_delivering_iron_to_the_oceanAbstract: The need to find economical methods of CO2 sequestration is now urgent. Ocean iron fertilisation has been suggested as a low cost mitigation option to capture and store carbon. However previous methods of estimating the cost fail to account for many of the losses and offsets occurring over the storage period. A method for calculating the net carbon stored from iron fertilisation of high nutrient low chlorophyll ocean regions is provided. Ship based fertilisation of the Southern Ocean is considered as a case study on average a single fertilisation is found to result in a net sequestration of 0.01 t C km–2 for 100 years at a cost of US$457 per tonne CO2. Previous estimates of cost underestimate the economic challenge of distributing low concentrations of iron over large areas of the ocean surface and the subsequent loss processes that result in only a small net storage of carbon per km2 fertilised. Technologies that could lower the cost are discussed Fundamentally the problem lies in the vast amount of ocean surface that needs to be seeded and the small fraction of carbon that remains stored away from the atmosphere for 100 years or more after considering the offsets. The high turn over of nitrogen in iron fertilisation due to high ventilation provides a considerable risk of doing harm rather than good if N2O production has been underestimated. Although export fraction is found to be a sensitive parameter it is largely outside the control of the project operators as are the majority of loss terms. When considering the cost of ocean iron fertilisation the loss terms due to the processes detailed here must be taken into account. The uncertainty is of similar magnitude to the expected net carbon stored posing potential problems for certification of carbon cre

    Reply
  115. How about replacing coal with nuclear? Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32,000,000,000 tons per year Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43% Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13,760,000,000 tons / year Life cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants = 820 g of CO2 / kWh Life cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants = 12 g of CO2 / kWh Life cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants = 808 g of CO2 / kWh = 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWh Amount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation = 15,725,714,285,714 kWh per year = 15,725,714,286 MWh per year Power output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 4 each 1 MW reactors)) = 4,000 MW = 35,040,000 MWh per year Number of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2 = 449 each = 1,796 1 MW reactors Capital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 4 each 1 MW reactors) = $5,900,000,000 Total Capital Costs = $2,647,879,973,907 About $2.5 Trillion, double to $5 trillion in today’s dollars World GDP (2016) = $75.4 trillion Summary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants, or about 1,800 1 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67% of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2%. So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes. Safe, clean nukes Other efforts (solar and wind, afforestation, carbon capture, fertilizing the oceans with irons sulfate, etc. ) can help but they are not nearly as cost effective as expanding nuclear energy. Nukes can also use off-peak KWh to electrolysize water to create enough hydrogen (without fossil fuel reformatting) to create a hydrogen fuel cell economy that avoids the chief problem with batteries as energy storage. Even the

    Reply
  116. How about replacing coal with nuclear?Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32000000000 tons per yearFraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13760000000 tons / yearLife cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants= 820 g of CO2 / kWhLife cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants= 12 g of CO2 / kWhLife cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants= 808 g of CO2 / kWh= 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWhAmount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation= 15725714285714 kWh per year= 15725714286 MWh per yearPower output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde 4 each 1 MW reactors))= 4000 MW= 35040000 MWh per yearNumber of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2= 449 each= 1796 1 MW reactorsCapital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde 4 each 1 MW reactors)= $5900000000Total Capital Costs= $2647879973907About $2.5 Trillion double to $5 trillion in today’s dollarsWorld GDP (2016)= $75.4 trillionSummary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants or about 1800 1 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes. Safe clean nukesOther efforts (solar and wind afforestation carbon capture fertilizing the oceans with irons sulfate etc. ) can help but they are not nearly as cost effective as expanding nuclear energy.

    Reply
  117. How about direct air capture (recently pegged at $600 per ton)? mount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32,000,000,000 tons per year Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43% Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13,760,000,000 tons / year = 13.76 billion tons World GDP (2016) = $75.4 trillion Total cost to remove this excess CO2 at $600 per ton =$8,256,000,000,000 =$8.25 trillion Or about 11% of world GDP annually. About 2% of World GDP is spent on the military.

    Reply
  118. How about direct air capture (recently pegged at $600 per ton)?mount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32000000000 tons per yearFraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13760000000 tons / year= 13.76 billion tonsWorld GDP (2016)= $75.4 trillionTotal cost to remove this excess CO2 at $600 per ton=$8256000000000=$8.25 trillionOr about 11{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of world GDP annually.About 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of World GDP is spent on the military.

    Reply
  119. Let’s take a look at our options, starting with trees. Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32,000,000,000 tons per year Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43% Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13,760,000,000 tons / year or 13.76 billion tons / year Annual CO2 sequestration per typical tree = 48 lbs of CO2 per tree Annual CO2 sequestration per typical forest area = 500 trees per acre or 320,000 trees per square mile = 24,000 lbs of CO2 per acre or 12 tons of CO2 per acre or 7,680 tons of CO2 per square mile Total area required = 1,791,667 square miles to sequester all excess CO2 or approx. 2.7 x area of Alaska or approx. 0.6 x area of contiguous US or approx. 0.5 x area of Canada = 573,333,333,333 new trees or 573.3 billion new trees = 3,000.0 billion existing trees worldwide = approx. 20% increase in the number of trees worldwide required to sequester excess CO2 World population = 7.44 billion people = 77 new trees per human

    Reply
  120. Let’s take a look at our options starting with trees.Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities= 32000000000 tons per yearFraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)= 43{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere= 13760000000 tons / yearor 13.76 billion tons / yearAnnual CO2 sequestration per typical tree= 48 lbs of CO2 per treeAnnual CO2 sequestration per typical forest area= 500 trees per acre or 320000 trees per square mile= 24000 lbs of CO2 per acreor 12 tons of CO2 per acreor 7680 tons of CO2 per square mileTotal area required= 1791667 square miles to sequester all excess CO2or approx. 2.7 x area of Alaskaor approx. 0.6 x area of contiguous USor approx. 0.5 x area of Canada= 573333333333 new trees or 573.3 billion new trees= 3000.0 billion existing trees worldwide= approx. 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} increase in the number of trees worldwide required to sequester excess CO2World population= 7.44 billion people= 77 new trees per human

    Reply
  121. What a load of BS.

    Point to a single review of the literature published in a reputable journal demonstrating that AGW is not widely accepted amongst climate scientists. You also demonstrate an ignorance for how science works. The preferred conclusion is that which is most consistent with the available data. No proving necessary. Hence we are quite confident that other stars represent suns like our own without having to go there and get burnt up by one. We are also confident the sun will rise tomorrow because we do not see any reason to doubt this and we assume the laws of physics will hold in the near future. It certainly isn’t proven however.

    Try learning what science is before commenting on it.

    Reply
  122. If I caught anyone keying my car, I would take out the tire iron and bash his head. Now, Matheus Henrique, if you are willing to pay this price for keying a car, then I think you should go for it, but please don’t cry if the consequences are not quite as you envisioned.

    Reply
  123. If I caught anyone keying my car I would take out the tire iron and bash his head. Now Matheus Henrique if you are willing to pay this price for keying a car then I think you should go for it but please don’t cry if the consequences are not quite as you envisioned.

    Reply
  124. Geo-Engineering is a high risk of declaring economical warfare… In layman’s terms if quit the rain in your country or flood it will change your agricultural export /import. Will farmers be able to adapt or not?. I think consumer market should be adjusted, with the weapon of tax, make synthetic meat cheap and cow-burgers 10 times more expensive. Synthetic meat production would be 100 times more economical and lower CO2 production a lot. Also shiping in international waters should be regulated better, the worst kind of oils are used in ships. The result a single large tanker produces as much CO2 as a small country. International waters cannot be a wild-west zone for polluters.

    Reply
  125. Geo-Engineering is a high risk of declaring economical warfare…In layman’s terms if quit the rain in your country or flood it will change your agricultural export /import.Will farmers be able to adapt or not?. I think consumer market should be adjusted with the weapon of tax make synthetic meat cheap and cow-burgers 10 times more expensive. Synthetic meat production would be 100 times more economical and lower CO2 production a lot.Also shiping in international waters should be regulated better the worst kind of oils are used in ships.The result a single large tanker produces as much CO2 as a small country.International waters cannot be a wild-west zone for polluters.

    Reply
  126. Point of no return for climate action is point when Geoengineering will start -> My strategy is different 1) when you see a SUV key it 2) people eating in Mc Donalds. Bad as they destroy the environment + cause suffering to animals -> Key ! .. and so on.. whether they change their behaviour or they will have to spend lots on car repair!

    Reply
  127. Point of no return for climate action is point when Geoengineering will start-> My strategy is different 1) when you see a SUV key it 2) people eating in Mc Donalds. Bad as they destroy the environment + cause suffering to animals -> Key ! .. and so on.. whether they change their behaviour or they will have to spend lots on car repair!

    Reply
  128. Yawn. And BS. We have nothing to worry about even if w reach temperature levels of Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, when mammalian life flourished… It both had much higher CO2 levels and temperature. (Not to mention that CO2 levels correlate poorly with elevated temperatures. There are geological evidences where ten times of current levels still coincided with ice ages…)

    Reply
  129. Yawn. And BS.We have nothing to worry about even if w reach temperature levels of Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum when mammalian life flourished… It both had much higher CO2 levels and temperature.(Not to mention that CO2 levels correlate poorly with elevated temperatures. There are geological evidences where ten times of current levels still coincided with ice ages…)”

    Reply
  130. FROM NOAA where did you get your BS Numbers??
    Top 10 warmest years (NOAA) (1880–2017) Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
    1 2016 0.94 1.69
    2 2015 0.90 1.62
    3 2017 0.84 1.51
    4 2014 0.74 1.33
    5 2010 0.70 1.26
    6 2013 0.66 1.19
    7 2005 0.65 1.17
    8 2009 0.64 1.15
    9 1998 0.63 1.13
    10 2012 0.62 1.12

    Reply
  131. 40% of that is coal use, which would be uneconomic to use in two thirds of existing coal plants just on a fuel basis (with a 100% paid for coal plant) at a carbon tax of $40 per tonne of CO2. Just about all methane leaks would be remediated at that price. And the 1/3 of high efficiency coal plants remaining would eventually be outcompeted by alternatives over a period of 20-30 years (probably sooner; technology trends have exceeded most expectations).

    $40 also stops most egregiously cheap to remediate land change CO2 (e.g. clear cutting forest for low profit subsistence agriculture).

    So assuming the world gets on board with a $40 carbon tax and enforced it that’s all that is needed. There is way too much hysteria on both sides of this issue.

    Reply
  132. Humans can spend a lot more money and ENERGY…. Exactly, You hit it right on both counts. Spend more money for energy, so more money to exist in essence because energy will cost so much more. The saddest part of which is the number of humans who don’t have energy now and will be faced with high cost energy when they have no extra money to spend.

    To me, regardless on how you stand on the honesty of the science on AGW this one aspect of cost and its resultant deniability of energy to poor should make you rethink your premise.
    Lastly I hope you understand the notion of Science, Theory, and Belief. The science of AGW is a theory, not proved, not widely accepted by those who are “in the field”. The “science” of AGW is a belief held by a very vocal and adamant group who will try every trick, every possible rue to pollute the actual Science of understanding our surroundings.

    Reply
  133. Try reforetation first, it does not involve adding or substraction something from our natural environment but restoring something that meant to exist in our environment so no side effects are expected. Also it has been shown that trees environment as a good effect on the mood.

    Reply
  134. ” YAWN” Not too smart are you. The sea levels will rise about 200 feet destroying every coastal city in the world. It will also displace billions of people. Think Bangladesh land where 170 million people are going to move. It will also flood millions of miles of land around the world. Then there will be the droughts and the floods and the areas that are no longer habitable. Lets not even think about the impact of the economies and the wars for arable lands and water and habitable spaces. Then there is the environmental damage but morons think that will be OK since the earth will heal itself in a few 100 thousand years.

    Hey genius exactly where did you get this misinformation. There is not one nationally recognized or international recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier BS. So name one and if you can’t then ask yourself who loaded your head with this crap! BTW FOX news and Rush Limbaugh and American Thinkers etc are not valid scientific sources.

    Reply
  135. And when they catch you they will use your face as a foot ball. Then when the police arrive they will find that you were responsible for the keying around the area. They will then convict and put you into jail. At that point you will be used as a comfort prisoner. Not a very wise approach if you ask me.

    Reply
  136. An experiment was done in the Atlantic and it did show a burst of plankton growth. The question is did it really remove carbon and by how much. I agree before we spend billions on modified 747s lets look at other alternatives. And for goodness sake lets fund MSRs and get them deployed.

    Reply
  137. Actually, I see it the other way
    Eating animals = crime
    Polluting the planet = crime
    Fighting against crimes = doing the right thing
    A different point of view, maybe ..

    .. and I have no problems with red shirts, or blacks or white shirts, or yellow
    Just with people harming animals, the planet

    Reply
  138. I am a tall and bulky man , I do not know how tall are you but if you take out the tire iron of your car the one landing in hospital may not be me.
    Let alone that you have to catch the guy first, and keying a car, if done properly, is very very difficult to detect.
    Just keep an eye on cameras, be sure to have a way out , do not push the key in the metal too quick, and do not apply too much pressure (if you use a sharpened knife you wont need to appky too much pressure)

    Reply
  139. Yes, but the money that people will need to spend to repaint cars would be taken from their fuel (gas) budget resulting in a net *decrease* of fuel consumption and therefore of emissions of CO2.
    As said above, the nice way is not going to work
    Oil and coal lobbies are way too strong !

    Reply
  140. Partly true.
    But you can check data from the past and see that Co2 emissions and rising temperatures go hand in hand
    Coincidence? Not quite.
    And what about all the data that show that temperatures have been *rising* in the part 50 years?
    And what about the South Pole and Greenald becoming greener and greener ? Coincidence again?

    Reply
  141. He’s become like a monkey in the Zoo: the monkey realizing she has no influence over her gawkers, throws shît at the crowd. Just read an article about treating psychopathic teens … in an effort to “cure” them. Oddly… like monkeys… the affected teens throw shît and urine at their guardians when they’re in “solitary” for misbehavior.

    The problem is Lucca’s adopted the idea as an “eco-warrior” that direct action needs to happen. That passing judgement is his right to exercise, and being the “judge, jury and executioner” then follows. It is the downfall of all radicals.

    Fascism, actually. “We don’t like your red shirt. Too late to take it off. We’ll just beat you up since you’re guilty. Goons… go.” Judging “the book by its cover”.

    Keying a SUV because it is a SUV.
    Keying a family’s car at McDonalds because they’re eating animal parts.
    Keying one’s neighbor’s car because he didn’t separate every bit of scrap into bins.

    Petty vandalism, because Lucca can. Throwing shît because he is otherwise powerless. Sitting in his tree laughing at all the people who are mighty irritated by his caprine behavior.

    Fascism.
    Its a disease.

    GoatGiuy

    Reply
  142. Just amazing.

    Based on models which have entirely been unable to “predict the near future” in the last 20 years, but relying on these same models to predict an again near future of The End of The World If We Don’t Do Something… we’re supposed to cobble together a fleet of 747s (how ironic), load them up with sulfur dioxide, and churn the stratosphere with them, to simulate what Big Honkin’ Volcanoes occasionally do.

    Wait, what?

    Mmmm… this isn’t too dissimilar from the 1950s practice — widely done! — of removing all the teeth from one’s mouth if you had more than a few cavities. “Just take ’em all out, and use dentures. They’re great!” Mmmm… that didn’t work out so well, did it?

    Well, there’s good news, I guess: the world of policy-and-action agencies is a miasma of indecision. No single agency has even a small fraction of the money needed even to start, let alone massively roll out such plans. Oh, the pölïtical megalomaniacs rub their hands in anticipation of controlling the pursestrings of a multi-trillion dollar program; millions of people would be grafted / employed to dot all those i’s, cross all those t’s, make reports, chart phoney-baloney results; imagine the endless stream of freshly minted PhD’s that’d come out!

    I’ve advocated a minimal amount of geoëngineering in the past: oceanic iron fertilization … I’ve found that it isn’t that large of an opportunity: most of the ocean doesn’t have the necessary mix of other minerals to afford much phytoplankton bloom growth if fertilized just with iron. To fertilize with “what it needs” is far more costly. The idea was “cheap, and works, and makes a byproduct called ‘food’ in abundance”.

    Since it is such a well contained cycle, and so easy to do (“boat” plus “waste iron sulfate” plus “a crew & fuel”), I really think it ought to be. At least to prove the science. As it is, today, there are now billions of fish being grown in the ocean in “fish farms”. Think of what kind of experiment that is, at some level.

    Anyway.
    Sure … let’s do stuff.
    But let’s NOT be so disingenuous as to believe that “models” that can’t predict the future, shall.

    GoatGuy

    Reply
  143. On 9-11, the entire air travel system in the US got shut down. It was a natural experiment. The absence of high altitude contrails actually measurably shifted the temperatures in America upwards a bit.

    It has been proposed to add to aviation fuels additives which would enhance the effect of contrails, preserving the contrails longer, and thus causing some cooling. (But only during the day. At night they have the opposite effect.) What’s illustrated, thus, is one proposed geoengineering technique.

    Reply
  144. Human can spend a lot more money and energy on renewable energy and other inventions to resolve the climate change problems, but the Americans and their imperialists partners have to drag rest of the world into destructive arm conflicts, arm race and trade wars to prevent others pouring resources into getting solutions for the climate change crisis. American said they are democracy, whatever they do, it is necessary with good intention including exterminating human species.

    Reply
  145. Repainting the SUV increases CO2 emissions, as would your funeral.
    My solution to decrease emissions of CO2 is to allow owners of PV, wind, and other non CO2 emitting energy sources to keep the proceeds of their equipment by prohibiting permitting fees, inspection fees, property taxes on generating assets, and income taxes on proceeds from sales of energy to the grid, and breaking up the utilities into generation, and transmission companies.
    Carrots are preferable to sticks, and taxation is too high anyway.

    Reply
  146. Your solution is as much economic warfare as what you try to avoid. Your solution favors countries with small agricultural sectors, and those that are technologically sophisticated. Meat exports can also be considered water exports, since the importing country does not need the water to raise the livestock.

    Reply
  147. Theoretically, CO2 effects temperatures at high latitudes, and other low humidity areas more than other areas, because in most parts of the planet the effect of water vapor swamps that of CO2. Cloud thinning at high latitudes, and over deserts, and high altitude mountains would yield results closer to the natural state.
    Of course iron fertilization of the oceans would reduce CO2 directly, as well as give the whales something to eat.

    Reply
  148. How about ocean fertilization with iron sulfate?

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264437659_A_method_for_estimating_the_cost_to_sequester_carbon_dioxide_by_delivering_iron_to_the_ocean

    Abstract: The need to find economical methods of CO2 sequestration is now urgent. Ocean iron fertilisation has been suggested as a low cost mitigation option to capture and store carbon. However, previous methods of estimating the cost fail to account for many of the losses and offsets occurring over the storage period. A method for calculating the net carbon stored from iron fertilisation of high nutrient low chlorophyll ocean regions is provided. Ship based fertilisation of the Southern Ocean is considered as a case study, on average, a single fertilisation is found to result in a net sequestration of 0.01 t C km–2 for 100 years at a cost of US$457 per tonne CO2. Previous estimates of cost underestimate the economic challenge of distributing low concentrations of iron over large areas of the ocean surface, and the subsequent loss processes that result in only a small net storage of carbon per km2 fertilised. Technologies that could lower the cost are discussed

    Fundamentally, the problem lies in the vast amount of ocean surface that needs to be seeded and the small fraction of carbon that remains stored away from the atmosphere for 100 years or more after considering the offsets. The high turn over of nitrogen in iron fertilisation due to high ventilation provides a considerable risk of doing harm rather than good if N2O production has been underestimated. Although export fraction is found to be a sensitive parameter it is largely outside the control of the project operators, as are the majority of loss terms. When considering the cost of ocean iron fertilisation the loss terms due to the processes detailed here must be taken into account. The uncertainty is of similar magnitude to the expected net carbon stored, posing potential problems for certification of carbon credits by ocean iron fertilisation. Strategies with potential to reduce the cost of ocean iron fertilisation include: development of an advanced iron fertiliser capable of long residence times in the surface ocean, and novel distribution techniques that can cover a larger ocean surface area for less CO2 penalty with less cost than regular delivery by ship

    Reply
  149. How about replacing coal with nuclear?

    Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities

    = 32,000,000,000 tons per year

    Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)

    = 43%

    Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere

    = 13,760,000,000 tons / year

    Life cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants

    = 820 g of CO2 / kWh

    Life cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants

    = 12 g of CO2 / kWh

    Life cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants

    = 808 g of CO2 / kWh

    = 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWh

    Amount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation

    = 15,725,714,285,714 kWh per year

    = 15,725,714,286 MWh per year

    Power output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 4 each 1 MW reactors))

    = 4,000 MW

    = 35,040,000 MWh per year

    Number of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2

    = 449 each
    = 1,796 1 MW reactors

    Capital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 4 each 1 MW reactors)

    = $5,900,000,000

    Total Capital Costs

    = $2,647,879,973,907

    About $2.5 Trillion, double to $5 trillion in today’s dollars

    World GDP (2016)

    = $75.4 trillion

    Summary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants, or about 1,800 1 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67% of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2%.

    So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes.

    Safe, clean nukes

    Other efforts (solar and wind, afforestation, carbon capture, fertilizing the oceans with irons sulfate, etc. ) can help but they are not nearly as cost effective as expanding nuclear energy.

    Nukes can also use off-peak KWh to electrolysize water to create enough hydrogen (without fossil fuel reformatting) to create a hydrogen fuel cell economy that avoids the chief problem with batteries as energy storage. Even the best rechargeable battery wears out over time and will no longer take a charge. Disposing of these batteries will be a major toxic waste disposal problem. So will the disposal of PVCs, which also wear out (current warranties for solar roof top arrays are 10 to 20 years).

    Reply
  150. How about direct air capture (recently pegged at $600 per ton)?

    mount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities

    = 32,000,000,000 tons per year

    Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)

    = 43%

    Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere

    = 13,760,000,000 tons / year

    = 13.76 billion tons

    World GDP (2016)

    = $75.4 trillion

    Total cost to remove this excess CO2 at $600 per ton

    =$8,256,000,000,000

    =$8.25 trillion

    Or about 11% of world GDP annually.

    About 2% of World GDP is spent on the military.

    Reply
  151. Let’s take a look at our options, starting with trees.

    Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities

    = 32,000,000,000 tons per year

    Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)

    = 43%

    Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere

    = 13,760,000,000 tons / year

    or 13.76 billion tons / year

    Annual CO2 sequestration per typical tree

    = 48 lbs of CO2 per tree

    Annual CO2 sequestration per typical forest area

    = 500 trees per acre or 320,000 trees per square mile

    = 24,000 lbs of CO2 per acre

    or 12 tons of CO2 per acre

    or 7,680 tons of CO2 per square mile

    Total area required

    = 1,791,667 square miles to sequester all excess CO2

    or approx. 2.7 x area of Alaska

    or approx. 0.6 x area of contiguous US

    or approx. 0.5 x area of Canada

    = 573,333,333,333 new trees or 573.3 billion new trees

    = 3,000.0 billion existing trees worldwide

    = approx. 20% increase in the number of trees worldwide required to sequester excess CO2

    World population

    = 7.44 billion people

    = 77 new trees per human

    Reply
  152. If I caught anyone keying my car, I would take out the tire iron and bash his head. Now, Matheus Henrique, if you are willing to pay this price for keying a car, then I think you should go for it, but please don’t cry if the consequences are not quite as you envisioned.

    Reply
  153. Geo-Engineering is a high risk of declaring economical warfare…
    In layman’s terms if quit the rain in your country or flood it will change your agricultural export /import.
    Will farmers be able to adapt or not?.

    I think consumer market should be adjusted, with the weapon of tax, make synthetic meat cheap and cow-burgers 10 times more expensive. Synthetic meat production would be 100 times more economical and lower CO2 production a lot.

    Also shiping in international waters should be regulated better, the worst kind of oils are used in ships.
    The result a single large tanker produces as much CO2 as a small country.
    International waters cannot be a wild-west zone for polluters.

    Reply
  154. Point of no return for climate action is point when Geoengineering will start
    -> My strategy is different
    1) when you see a SUV key it
    2) people eating in Mc Donalds. Bad as they destroy the environment + cause suffering to animals -> Key !
    .. and so on..
    whether they change their behaviour or they will have to spend lots on car repair!

    Reply
  155. Yawn. And BS.
    We have nothing to worry about even if w reach temperature levels of Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, when mammalian life flourished… It both had much higher CO2 levels and temperature.

    (Not to mention that CO2 levels correlate poorly with elevated temperatures. There are geological evidences where ten times of current levels still coincided with ice ages…)

    Reply

Leave a Comment