ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agw , global warming , science and politics , technology

View Poll Results: Do you support using Geoengineering solutions to limit Global Warming?
Yeah, why not? 16 43.24%
No, bad idea. 12 32.43%
Don't know / don't care. 6 16.22%
On Planet X, the climate is already perfect (or at least as God intended) 3 8.11%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 23rd August 2018, 02:26 AM   #1
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Geoengineering Y/N

With the (mostly) undisputed threat of Global Warming causing temperatures to rise by at least 2° and the unwillingness of countries to make strong decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ...
... would you support technological methods to reduce Global Warming without solving the CO2 emission issue?

Here are some of the proposed ideas which (according to current knowledge) would manage to reduce average global temperatures by 1°, greatly reducing the negative impact of AGW.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...geoengineering

Do you think this is a good idea?
Or the stupidest thing ever?

Please vote and give us a reason (if you can be bothered).
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 02:42 AM   #2
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,114
The examples given sound to me more like 'We put too much stuff in the air, so we're now going to put even more stuff into the air to combat the earlier stuff, while still putting the earlier stuff into the same air.'

Putting mirrors into space?
How many lauches do you need to remove 2% of the incoming light? (example given). What would all the exhaust gasses from those rocket launches do to the atmosphere?
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 02:46 AM   #3
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,484
Reminds me a little of this clip from The Simpsons...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 02:54 AM   #4
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,114
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Reminds me a little of this clip from The Simpsons...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Says it so much better.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:26 AM   #5
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,291
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Putting mirrors into space?
How many lauches do you need to remove 2% of the incoming light? (example given). What would all the exhaust gasses from those rocket launches do to the atmosphere?
I think before we get to the point of using mirrors in space, we'd need to be doing the mining and manufacturing of those mirrors in space as well. Let's also source the energy for doing all of this in space and the rocket fuel for moving stuff around as well.

It's going to be a while. Certainly not before we need to be finding solutions to global warming.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:26 AM   #6
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,512
While I think the idea has merit, I prefer the idea of bioengineering.

https://www.inverse.com/article/2629...climate-change

Biological systems are already many times more efficient than chemical systems at scrubbing CO2 from air, and there’s reason to believe they could get even better. A team of biochemists in Germany recently developed a new molecular transformation chain that, at least in the lab, is about 25 percent more efficient than the enzyme chain used in photosynthesis. A living system genetically engineered to use this pathway might metabolize carbon dioxide two or three times as fast as it otherwise would, the researchers predict, although this has not been tried and outcomes are uncertain.

But it’s theoretically possible that, if plants genetically modified in this way spread across the Earth, they would be not only enormously useful in pulling carbon from the air for biofuel, but also helpful for carbon capture and storage. Biomass produced by the plants might be sequestered long term either through extensive deep root systems, or through some sort of sequestration project.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 05:30 AM   #7
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,291
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
The examples given sound to me more like 'We put too much stuff in the air, so we're now going to put even more stuff into the air to combat the earlier stuff, while still putting the earlier stuff into the same air.'
Yeah, and taking antibiotics for a waterborne illness is like "I put the wrong stuff into my body so I'm going to put even more stuff into my body to combat the earlier stuff".

Nothing about your summary suggests that geoengineering solutions won't work. On the other hand I do think it would be wise to try to lower CO2 emissions, so hopefully the last part of what you wrote won't be true.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:04 AM   #8
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,114
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yeah, and taking antibiotics for a waterborne illness is like "I put the wrong stuff into my body so I'm going to put even more stuff into my body to combat the earlier stuff".

Nothing about your summary suggests that geoengineering solutions won't work. On the other hand I do think it would be wise to try to lower CO2 emissions, so hopefully the last part of what you wrote won't be true.
That is true, concerning te antibiotics.

But I was more thinking about the consequences of all this 'putting other stuff in the air'.
How much CO2 and H2O will we put in the air extra in using these six solutions? How many biotopes will we destroy extra with these measurements? What will the balance be?

As I tried to show with the rockets and mirror example.

Or spraying salt waterdroplets from ships into the clouds. Those will be some mighty fountains to come that high. How many tons of waterdroplets would be needed? How many ships will you need for that?

It does contain information like “Approximately a 2% reduction in incoming sunlight [using a sunshade] is sufficient to offset the warming from a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm to 560ppm. The current CO2 level is about 400ppm.”.
But it is very light on what is needed to do this.

I accept that the priciples in question would work. But there are practicle considerations to think of as well.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"

Last edited by erwinl; 23rd August 2018 at 07:22 AM. Reason: Edit: Many has one 'n' less, than I used. :-)
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:14 AM   #9
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,747
I am not opposed to geoengineering but we really need to examine the possible consequences before implementing anything. Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

Edit to add: We will likely have to do something to actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere as we'll like go well beyond the point of no return before reducing emissions significantly.

Last edited by ahhell; 23rd August 2018 at 06:15 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 09:19 AM   #10
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,710
I chose don't know/don't care, but not because I don't care. As others have mentioned the energy cost of such engineering would be high (and forget off-planet mining/construction or whatever, that's going exactly nowhere in the timeframe involved). Meanwhile we're making precious little progress on restraining our excesses on the fossil-fuel scene.

There isn't time. I truly believe we're shafted, to the extent that I hope AGW theories are plain wrong, though I don't believe for a second that they are.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 09:25 AM   #11
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,740
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I chose don't know/don't care, but not because I don't care. As others have mentioned the energy cost of such engineering would be high (and forget off-planet mining/construction or whatever, that's going exactly nowhere in the timeframe involved). Meanwhile we're making precious little progress on restraining our excesses on the fossil-fuel scene.

There isn't time. I truly believe we're shafted, to the extent that I hope AGW theories are plain wrong, though I don't believe for a second that they are.
Same here. The ideas in the article seem a bit far-fetched.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 09:35 AM   #12
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Actually, some methods like blasting sulphur into the atmosphere would be easy, quite cheap and temporary, since it would basically mimic a volcanic eruption.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 12:00 PM   #13
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,119
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Actually, some methods like blasting sulphur into the atmosphere would be easy, quite cheap and temporary, since it would basically mimic a volcanic eruption.
I'm pretty sure that mimicking a major volcanic eruption would be neither cheap nor easy.

Like the idea of stopping a hurricane with an H-bomb. It turns out that the energy in a hurricane dwarfs the biggest bombs we have. Nuking one would be like farting in, well, a hurricane.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 12:29 PM   #14
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm pretty sure that mimicking a major volcanic eruption would be neither cheap nor easy.

Like the idea of stopping a hurricane with an H-bomb. It turns out that the energy in a hurricane dwarfs the biggest bombs we have. Nuking one would be like farting in, well, a hurricane.
actually you can either use planes or just a REALLY big chimney. Remember that you are only interested in the smoke, not the rocks.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 12:34 PM   #15
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,849
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
While I think the idea has merit, I prefer the idea of bioengineering.

https://www.inverse.com/article/2629...climate-change
Biological systems are already many times more efficient than chemical systems at scrubbing CO2 from air, and there’s reason to believe they could get even better. A team of biochemists in Germany recently developed a new molecular transformation chain that, at least in the lab, is about 25 percent more efficient than the enzyme chain used in photosynthesis. A living system genetically engineered to use this pathway might metabolize carbon dioxide two or three times as fast as it otherwise would, the researchers predict, although this has not been tried and outcomes are uncertain.

But it’s theoretically possible that, if plants genetically modified in this way spread across the Earth, ....
And Earth would have problems with "foreign species" like Australia does. "Cane toad algae" and "Jackrabbit fungus" anyone?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 12:37 PM   #16
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,710
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Actually, some methods like blasting sulphur into the atmosphere would be easy, quite cheap and temporary, since it would basically mimic a volcanic eruption.
How would we blast it? And, if it's temporary, how often would we need to blast? It might take a century to mitigate AGW with this 'shading' concept. Plus, it sounds like an awful lot of sulphur. Mining and transport costs?

Man, we barely understand the whole 'weather' business, and we can fix it by flinging dust into the atmosphere?

"The energy released from the [Krakatoa] explosion has been estimated to be equal to about 200 megatons of TNT,[5] roughly four times as powerful as the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever detonated"
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 12:53 PM   #17
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra...te_engineering)
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 01:49 PM   #18
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,119
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
That article seems entirely silent on the questions of cost and effort. Some hand waving at various delivery systems, and that's about it.

How many tons of sulfur are needed? Over what time period? How many tons can an artillery battery (for example) deliver in a single volley? How many batteries firing how many volleys would it take to deliver the required tonnage in the required time frame?

Or take the airliner fuel proposal. How does the math work out for that one?

And speaking of not having to move rocks: First, there's the literal rock moving involved in mining for sulfur to use for this project. Then there's all the rock moving energy equivalent involved in transporting mass quantities of sulfur around, to get it into position.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 02:53 PM   #19
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,167
I voted yes, and of course there are several different options for geoengineering. Some are 100% beneficial restoration of biomes and ecosystems services type geoengineering strategies, while other involve major unknown risks.
I am not in favor of the later while fully in favor or the former.

Here is a good one just to give an example:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Of course there are as many different types of these geoengineering projects as there are different types of biomes. But the one common denominator is that all life on the planet is carbon based and any geoengineering project that restores lost ecosystem function by restoring them to life, will improve the carbon cycle dramatically.

I also advocate changing agriculture to organic based methods as well for the same reason.
Quote:
"We try to grow things that want to die, and kill things that want to live. That is pretty much how (industrial) agriculture functions." Colin Seis
Carbon is the element of life and biotic systems outperform abiotic systems in producing food, while simultaneously also stabilizing the climate.
Quote:
"Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony."-USDA
ETA Oh and BTW the 6 ideas from your link all fall into the category of "major unknown risks". So basically that means they would fit your "one of the stupidest things ever" type ideas.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 23rd August 2018 at 02:58 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 03:43 PM   #20
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,057
Most probably will not work and if they did would have only a marginal effect on temperatures. For example let us build a giant shade to stop sun from reaching the surface. That would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching plants so reducing their ability to get rid of CO2. Then it might reflect heat coming from the surface, thus warming the surface even more.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2018, 06:43 PM   #21
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,116
I voted "yeah" but I want to say that it is a cautious "yeah". Any geoengineering option will need to be thoroughly researched and modelled, and tested extensively before being deployed globally. Even then, I'm sure there will be unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by casebro View Post
And Earth would have problems with "foreign species" like Australia does. "Cane toad algae" and "Jackrabbit fungus" anyone?
The problem of invasive species is certainly not unique to Australia.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 01:34 PM   #22
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,919


Easier to comment.

Aerosols will work - are cheap and very destructive ...think acid rain. We already did that experiment 1950-1980 ....it did offset AGW and wrecked a lot of lakes and forests. SO2 = Acid rain....look up Global Cooling.
Easy to control the amount.

Space based mirrors.....costly tho energy concerns for manufacture and launch etc are miniscule. Recently dimming via that route got some negatives for vegetation impacts. Very hard to control.

Cloud ships and micro bubbles. Both might be a feasible approach. Increasing albedo is certainly a valid approach and either is easy to scale.

Cloud thinning might have some knock on effects but have not seen enough info.

Because of the way AGW works reflection at the ocean surface is ideal before the infra-red gets going. Idf you can bounce the shortwave back to space before it is absorbed and re-emitted as long wave which gets trapped by the atmosphere

The more we can bounce directly back to space the less gets transformed to longwave which is the problem as it's absorbed by greenhouse gases and the atmosphere retains this heat.



good explanation here.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_teacherpage/

Personally I think a combination of albedo management and active carbon removal will slow things down and manybe turn it around.

Last edited by macdoc; 24th August 2018 at 01:36 PM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 02:00 PM   #23
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,710
^ Any chance you could resize those graphics?

But the gist of that tech is still that we carry on regardless and fix the outcome with the tech, rather than rein in our excesses.

In other news, I was reading The Economist the other day (a weighty, serious mag) where it was discussing India's devotion to coal. Per capita, India's CO2 output is quite low compared to 'developed' countries, but it's steadily growing and there are a lot of 'capitas' over there

We're stuffed. Humans are selfish, short-sighted idiots, devoted - on the grand scale - to personal gain and **** the future.

Clean coal! (Remind me ... who said that recently?)
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 06:11 PM   #24
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,291
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
But the gist of that tech is still that we carry on regardless and fix the outcome with the tech, rather than rein in our excesses.
I don't think that's the gist of that tech, it's certainly not what anyone is proposing. Every time I've seen geoengineering proposed (including the OP article) emphasis is put on the fact that it must be done in combination with reduction in CO2 output.


Quote:
We're stuffed. Humans are selfish, short-sighted idiots, devoted - on the grand scale - to personal gain and **** the future.
I find it an odd juxtaposition that on the one hand you complain about the geoengineering approach because it will let us rest on our laurels and on the other say that there's nothing we can do. If the traditional ways of mitigating climate change aren't going to work, we need to be looking at other solutions as well.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 07:11 PM   #25
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,532
I voted no, as it would be easier to stop burning coal.

Unless by geoengineering you mean building a bunch of desalination plants and foresting the Sahara, that might help.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 10:23 PM   #26
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,743
Will the world's biggest industrialized nations ever agree to collectively slow down their economies, make some trillion-dollar sacrifices to do this? It's depressing.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 09:19 AM   #27
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,167
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Will the world's biggest industrialized nations ever agree to collectively slow down their economies, make some trillion-dollar sacrifices to do this? It's depressing.
It is not required actually.

Project drawdown has quantified the economics of what it would take to take the entire planet into a drawdown negative carbon footprint. Most of the solutions actually improve the economies, ecologies, and carbon footprint simultaneously.

Quote:
The list is comprised primarily of “no regrets” solutions—actions that make sense to take regardless of their climate impact since they have intrinsic benefits to communities and economies. These initiatives improve lives, create jobs, restore the environment, enhance security, generate resilience, and advance human health.[1]
Counter-intuitively, slowing down the economies would likely actually increase emissions as countries struggle to maintain standard of living with antiquated obsolete systems.

I am no expert on all the solutions described by Project drawdown. But in my field this principle still holds.

Lets take for example SRI rice. This form of paddy rice production has a vastly different carbon footprint.
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)…
… is climate-smart rice production

Quote:
SRI creates a triple-win situation for agriculture, climate security, and food security because it:
1. Sustainably increases rice production and farmer incomes (greater crop productivity)
2. Strengthens crops’ resilience to climate change and variability (facilitates adaptation)
3. Reduces rice production’s contribution to climate change (helps promote mitigation)
It's a win win win for everybody from the barefoot farmer up to the international markets, and every single one in between. There are no losers here. This myth that we must sacrifice to mitigate or reverse AGW is simply a rumor started by the merchants of doubt.

Mitigating AGW would actually probably lower taxes, fire up economies, reduce poverty and hunger, improve efficiency.

The people spreading myths that this needs sacrifice are nothing more than Neo-Luddites.

Neo-Luddism - Wikipedia
Quote:
Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology.[1] The word Luddite is generally used as a derogatory term applied to people showing technophobic leanings.[2] The name is based on the historical legacy of the British Luddites, who were active between 1811 and 1816
They simply can't accept that solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear are the future technologies; and fossil fuels are the antiquated obsolete buggy whips on the way out.
Same thing with agriculture. The mere thought that we can replace living systems with abiotic agrochemicals is becoming more and more an increasingly absurd and futile idea.

Both sides of the carbon cycle that we humans are negatively influencing and are causing AGW are currently being subsidized massively by all the world's governments to try and prevent their failure and replacement by the new more efficient sustainable systems. There is your problem right now.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 02:08 PM   #28
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,919
Quote:
Will the world's biggest industrialized nations ever agree to collectively slow down their economies, make some trillion-dollar sacrifices to do this? It's depressing.
There is zero reason to slow an economy to go carbon neutral ....even the US has divorced GDP growth from electricity use.
If anything going carbon neutral stimulates job growth and refitting housing and public buildings is only a good thing and a job creator.

Eliminating coal would help but not enough and I think I'm informed enough to suggest that geo-engineering. carbon sequestration and a strong commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be required to retain even a semblance of the current climate.

Already nasty feedbacks in the Arctic may take it out of our hands entirely.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 07:05 PM   #29
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,743
I think some social engineering could be put to good use here as well.

We are on track to reach 9 billion people by 2030. With food security already in jeopardy we need ways to cut down our need for energy.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 09:17 PM   #30
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I think some social engineering could be put to good use here as well.

We are on track to reach 9 billion people by 2030. With food security already in jeopardy we need ways to cut down our need for energy.
We have food abundance.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 09:29 PM   #31
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,919
I agree - we have food distribution and waste issues ....not supply.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 09:50 PM   #32
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,167
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
We have food abundance.
Food abundance and food security are two different things.

Yes indeed we are awash in excess food. So much excess food we actually have to find new and creative ways to "destroy" it in order to maintain market prices.

But all this comes at a cost, both in energy and in land degradation.

It costs 10 calories of fossil fuels to obtain 1 calorie of food!
10 Calories in, 1 Calorie Out - The Energy We Spend on Food

Soil degradation is even worse at 100 tonnes soil lost per ton food produced and fully 1/3rd of all the soils worldwide are acutely degraded by agriculture. Not to mention at least 133 billion tonnes of carbon missing from the soils that are left.

Third of Earth's soil is acutely degraded due to agriculture

World’s soils have lost 133 billion tonnes of carbon since the dawn of agriculture, study estimates

Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits

Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues

Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production

Land Degradation: An overview

so as you can see, just flooding the markets with excess food, doesn't mean they are secure at all. In fact our food security has been declining at the inverse rate our food excess has been growing!

The Great Acceloration

If this was a bank account or a trust fund or any other form of financial note, then we would immediately see that we are spending beyond our means and will retire in utter bankruptcy and poverty. But since this is the world food supply we turn our heads and pretend all is ok? Really?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 25th August 2018 at 09:57 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 12:24 AM   #33
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,057
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Food abundance and food security are two different things.

Yes indeed we are awash in excess food. So much excess food we actually have to find new and creative ways to "destroy" it in order to maintain market prices.

But all this comes at a cost, both in energy and in land degradation.

It costs 10 calories of fossil fuels to obtain 1 calorie of food!
10 Calories in, 1 Calorie Out - The Energy We Spend on Food

Soil degradation is even worse at 100 tonnes soil lost per ton food produced and fully 1/3rd of all the soils worldwide are acutely degraded by agriculture. Not to mention at least 133 billion tonnes of carbon missing from the soils that are left.

Third of Earth's soil is acutely degraded due to agriculture

World’s soils have lost 133 billion tonnes of carbon since the dawn of agriculture, study estimates

Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits

Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues

Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production

Land Degradation: An overview

so as you can see, just flooding the markets with excess food, doesn't mean they are secure at all. In fact our food security has been declining at the inverse rate our food excess has been growing!

The Great Acceloration

If this was a bank account or a trust fund or any other form of financial note, then we would immediately see that we are spending beyond our means and will retire in utter bankruptcy and poverty. But since this is the world food supply we turn our heads and pretend all is ok? Really?
Reminds me of something I read years ago. A proposed way to grow food. In cities you build skyscrapers. These hold farms. These would need energy in form of light for the plants. Then fertilisers, just like any other farm.

The energy could be off peak electricity. In the fossil free energy future there will be massive quantities of off peak electricity available at certain times. Then the same fertilisers would be needed as any other farm. So what seamed like a crazy idea to me might actually work.

The advantages of growing food like this include
1. Food is grown very close to where it is consumed, so no transport costs and the food is fresh.
2. Not dependant on weather, so production would be reliable.
3. Pests would have problems getting to the crops.
3. Food where you get a high $ value per unit area could be grown this way.
4. Workers could live in the city.
5. Much less land is needed to grow the food.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 12:49 AM   #34
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,289
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Reminds me of something I read years ago. A proposed way to grow food. In cities you build skyscrapers. These hold farms. These would need energy in form of light for the plants. Then fertilisers, just like any other farm.

The energy could be off peak electricity. In the fossil free energy future there will be massive quantities of off peak electricity available at certain times. Then the same fertilisers would be needed as any other farm. So what seamed like a crazy idea to me might actually work.

The advantages of growing food like this include
1. Food is grown very close to where it is consumed, so no transport costs and the food is fresh.
2. Not dependant on weather, so production would be reliable.
3. Pests would have problems getting to the crops.
3. Food where you get a high $ value per unit area could be grown this way.
4. Workers could live in the city.
5. Much less land is needed to grow the food.
There are trials.

What really gets me is that in Japan, a Fujitsu semiconductor fab has been converted to growing high quality food.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 01:14 AM   #35
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
We have food abundance.
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
I agree - we have food distribution and waste issues ....not supply.
We need less people.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 01:42 AM   #36
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
We need less people.
less people would mean less minds to solve the world's problems.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 02:17 AM   #37
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,291
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Reminds me of something I read years ago. A proposed way to grow food. In cities you build skyscrapers. These hold farms. These would need energy in form of light for the plants. Then fertilisers, just like any other farm.

The energy could be off peak electricity. In the fossil free energy future there will be massive quantities of off peak electricity available at certain times. Then the same fertilisers would be needed as any other farm. So what seamed like a crazy idea to me might actually work.

The advantages of growing food like this include
1. Food is grown very close to where it is consumed, so no transport costs and the food is fresh.
2. Not dependant on weather, so production would be reliable.
3. Pests would have problems getting to the crops.
3. Food where you get a high $ value per unit area could be grown this way.
4. Workers could live in the city.
5. Much less land is needed to grow the food.
What's the cost/square meter of space in a skyscraper? What's the cost per square meter of space on a farm?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 02:28 AM   #38
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,289
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
There are trials.

What really gets me is that in Japan, a Fujitsu semiconductor fab has been converted to growing high quality food.
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/bl...ttuce-2014-05/
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 04:32 AM   #39
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,167
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
less people would mean less minds to solve the world's problems.
Got to agree with you this time. Counter-intuitively overpopulation is not directly linked to population increases, but rather the systems we use to support that population. Human beings passed that stage where the two are directly linked over 10,000 years ago or so.

What this means is that decreasing population almost never actually decreases overpopulation. Instead to reduce overpopulation we can change those fundamental foundations supporting our society like agriculture and energy to sustainable systems and this will directly reduce overpopulation.

Technology is not a problem, we already have it. We know how to recycle, to use renewable energy like solar wind hydroelectric etc, and use regenerative agriculture. This means we could support our population with sustainable systems rather than the ones we use now.

Almost as an afterthought or unintended but beneficial side effect; if we did that, AGW would also vanish in just a few decades.

Or you can say we can fight global warming and almost as an afterthought or unintended but beneficial side effect we would also dramatically reduce overpopulation and poverty and greatly increase food security. (and a host of other environmental problems also vanish)

Either way you say it, the results are the same. Its the classic systems science solution to complex problems, change the system to something sustainable and multiple problems get solved!
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 08:21 AM   #40
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,919
Quote:
What's the cost/square meter of space in a skyscraper? What's the cost per square meter of space on a farm?
Meaningless....the question is what is the productivity per sq meter.

Quote:
Most vertical farms use hydroponics or aeroponics, soil-free methods in which nutrients are dissolved in water and circulated into a plant’s bare roots. And with proper engineering, water can be easily conserved. In fact, Crop One says it will use 1/2500th the water of an equivalently sized soil operation. Energy is a little trickier, as the plants still require light. LEDs are fairly energy-efficient, compared with older lighting systems, but you need an awful lot of them.

One way to counteract the large energy footprint of vertical farms is to set up a clean energy source. Crop One told CNN that it will be using a mix of power grid energy and solar; Dubai does not currently get very much of its energy from solar power but has announced ambitious plans to ramp up solar power in the next few years. Its target by 2050: 75 percent of Dubai’s energy will come from solar.

The Crop One facility will primarily grow greens, which do very well in systems like this and aims to harvest 6,000 pounds of greens per day. Those will be going, not surprisingly given its co-owners, to in-flight and airport lounge meals starting in December of 2019. Crop One has not announced plans to grow anything besides leafy greens, but more variety is certainly possible; squash, peppers, and some fruits (like strawberries) have proven able to handle vertical farming.


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...JgV6eECFtOH.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
We also have a LOT of sunshine for solar energy to power the farms.


And vertical farming is already in place in some areas

https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531...roponic-greens

https://www.queenslandcountrylife.co...s-to-brisbane/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-1...8-days/9845544

and in Queensland we've got LOTS of ground area but water is a challenge. Having produce actually produced right in the area where it is consumed offers enormous benefits plus very highly controlled growing conditions, need for little or no pesticide, no herbicides, year round production and easily shifted product variety.

Last edited by macdoc; 26th August 2018 at 08:24 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.