The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the amount produced and consumed by plants is very high compared to the amount produced by humans. Long term the solution is absolutely to reduce the CO2 produced by mankind through renewable energy, and reducing CO2 produced by agriculture. In the short term though carbon farming can sequester large amounts of carbon by growing on land that was previously desert, or the method mentioned in the linked page. Hopefully this slows down global warming enough to give humanity enough time to come up with a sustainable solution

Just so you know, fossil fuels are a renewable energy on a large enough timescale. It's the massive rate of consumption and waste of them which is the issue.

Switching to biofuel or solar or wind at the same massive consumption rate will not fix the issue.

> fossil fuels are a renewable energy on a large enough timescale

No they're not, at least coal isn't because it was formed from trees and other heavy cellulose based plant matter that wasn't broken down by microbes millions of years ago, but would be broken down today. Oil and Methane may be "renewable" but not in a timeline worth considering.

Switching to other methods of generation would fix the problem of climate change caused by the release of CO2. Other issues are definitely important, but not on the same level as unchecked global warming.

Do you mean that there do not exist any energy sources which are renewable at the rate we require, or that using such sources at the current / future rate would still be irresponsible for some reason?

Unless you can stop the marine ecosystem from cratering (virtually a given if CO2 levels continue to rise unabated) it's all for naught. Enjoy your lack of oxygen.

I'm highly dubious that all marine photosynthesis is going to be stopped easily. Do you have citations?

<Error>

<Code>AccessDenied</Code>

<Message>Request has expired</Message>

On mobile so I'll let you search for it, but start at Wikipedia for anoxic oceanic event. You don't have to stop much photosynthesis for the oceans to produce huge amounts of deadly hydrogen sulfide

The wiki does not support 'huge amounts', and makes some tenous connections to some localized events and worldwide extinction event ones, as do most of the people who bring this up. It makes it hard to have the same conversation if they are conflated.

However, note the end of the wiki, where they state that the oxygenated state of the ocean currently is likely not the 'default' state of things if extrapolated beyond human history. It is certanly a concern. However there are ways to stimulate blooms, which may help serve to sequester carbon, and add oxygen in one fell swoop. Perhaps it is time to investigate the feasibility of such an action.

Agreed, these types of solutions are really just a stopgap (and a relatively short one at that). But that's always been the case. I mean, there's no beating entropy. Eventually the heat-death of the universe will make it, literally, all for naught.

The difference between end of all time in however many tens of billions of years vs the economic collapse of human society in a handful of generations is a fairly major scale difference.

A handful of generations seems far fetched, a couple seems a loose estimation. next generation seems closer to reality.

AFAIK the collapse has already begun and is happening right now.

Yeah, we've got less than two billion years before the Sun expands enough to cook off our atmosphere. I suspect we will be extinct before that, however. As a collective, we're not very bright.

Really we should just be focusing on building a time machine and re-populate the pre-human past. I imagine that no matter what happens, we could just populate infinite timelines (But we are more likely to already be on that exact timeline)

That seems a bit of a long-shot. I'm not sure if it is less likely than us causing our own extinction, however.

I don't watch a lot of movies, and I recall even fewer, but there is an appropriate line in The Matrix about how a human can be smart but humans are pretty dumb as a whole. It seems to be remarkably true.

You're thinking of Men in Black.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

I suspect you're right. I don't watch many movies so I'll defer to you.

This would be great, except time does not exist. it is an artificial human construct we use to explain ourselves some stuff we do not comprehend.

We've got two billion years to learn how to control the sun, increase the Earth's orbital radius, or move home. Sounds manageable.

Home?

"move [to a new] home"

Oh, there are plenty of things that will wipe out humans far earlier. I was just pointing out that there's always something threatening to destroy us.

I just don't see the point in this.

Knowing about the eventual heat-death of the universe doesn't make the immediate prospect of my family and I dying in a water riot any more palatable.

The problem with geo-engineering solutions to global warming is that they would require global consent. Anything else would be a drastic violation of human rights, and potentially a cause for massive conflict. We all have to share the same planet, and some peoples might be drastically opposed to (potentially) irreversible processes such as the scattering of chemicals in the atmosphere. Any "for the good of mankind" justification is almost beside the point.

Wait, so everyone is allowed to contribute to global climate change without permission, but we need everyone's agreement to prevent it?

Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.

So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem.

Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2.

Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.

It wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.

Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)

Luckily(?) catastrophic climate-related events are already happening.

Only one.

If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.

This is basically the root of most coordination problems.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Isn't Drastic violations of human rights the other name of the USA and also all other nations around the globe ?

This view is also a specist one, what about all the other lifeforms on the planet that we could not have life favorable condition on earth ? insects, plants, ocean life, corals, etc.

Switch from compete to cooperate mindset and there would be a lot less lifeforms rights violations. Also instead of having the USA lifestyle as a model we try try to reach and have for ourselves, we should aim for the India lifestyle so we could all live on earth without destroying the planet.

I think many peoples are drastically opposed to what is happening right now with rising CO2 levels.

Most good engineers are wise enough to ignore the public and philosophers like you. :-P If you look at medical history, it is littered with Doctors who discovered something crucial and revolutionary who were met with resistance. The same story goes with astronomers.

How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes!

> How about this: Are people allowed to act in a way that will save themselves, even if it sames everyone else on the planet, and has some side effects? I think the answer is an emphatic yes!

Who decides which ways will save and are therefore allowed?

Screw consent.

If I pull off some massive project like this what is another person/business/country going to do about?

If someone "solves" climate for some value of solved are you going to invade them and start a war over your economy being saved?

That's not feasible. Even the most isolated nation-state in the world (i.e. N. Korea) has a hard time getting its high tech projects finished if all of the other countries are working against it. And they have the advantage of a fanatical following and oppressive control of the military and media.

Something on this scale would be pretty much impossible to pull off if all the G-8 countries put you/your company on an embargo list for high tech materials.

North Korea is making Nukes to threaten the world with. And is a tiny shithile country with an already destroyed economy.

It helps to be claiming to be acting in humanity's best interest instead of obviously being a despot. Think about the political aftermath of interfering with someone claiming that they are trying to save the world and having a reasonable argument that is the case.

Someone attempting this would likely be in a major country and would likely have the approval of most of the countries. If the USA attempted no amount of embargos could stop them, the same with Russia and maybe a few other countries.

It is even possible that Germany, France, Israel or South Africa could pull it off with a little politics and clandestine dealings. They could delay politically and pester larger nations and demand UN actions while continuing development.

If the US and Russia were dead set on stopping they could with a few bombing runs from aircraft carriers. I don't think that is likely because neither of these countries is crazy and would love to be saved at no cost while having a political bogeyman they can use in the future.

EDIT - Have an upvote for a thoughtful and reasonable reply though.

So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole. You don't care about any form of democracy. You don't care what anyone else thinks. You think you're right, and anyone who opposes you is wrong. And since you're right, you're justified in doing whatever you think is necessary.

Am I understanding you correctly?

> So, just to be clear, you want to impose your will on the planet, as a whole.

When it comes to saving countless lives, the economy and in the most extreme of possible outcomes all civilization... YES.

Vast tragedies throughout history were perpetrated by people who thought they knew better than everyone else, that their ends justified imposing their means on the rest of the human race.

Your attitude is dangerous, because you can use it to justify anything (e.g. you think you're about saving lives). It is evil, because it places you above everyone else and leads to death (e.g. you think you're saving civilization, which requires destroying the bad parts of it).

You either have not learned from history, or have learned the wrong lessons from it and are following in the footsteps of millennia of anti-heroes.

I think a really hard limit on the max CO2 acceptable that most everyone would agree to would be where outside air starts to feel stuffy to humans. I have not found a good study on this but indoor air quality people say around 1000 ppm CO2 and you should start trying to increase ventilation. If the atmosphere gets too high it will be hard to keep indoor air below that without CO2 scrubbers. Over 750ppm(?) CO2 in the atmosphere and one gets the horrible situation where one goes inside a CO2 controlled space instead of outside to get "some fresh air".

Edit: Here is a decent article on a study of some cognitive effects of CO2 levels (http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-...). Actual study paper (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/)

We're at 400 ppm CO2 right now. So your feeling is that we'll probably start reducing carbon emissions once we double the amount of carbon in the air?

450 ppm is often held up as a catastrophic point of no return. I don't know if that's alarmist. Let's say it is! Maybe we'd have to get all the way to 600 ppm before it was genuinely a catastrophe. But I'm pretty confident that if we reach 700 ppm, we're fucked.

The Earth's orbit is too circular and our axis isn't tilted enough. We're at the maximal energy absorbing posture. In 100,000 years, we'll need this greenhouse blanket to keep our ice planet warm.

Those are some really interesting points; I wonder if you could elaborate a bit? Thanks!

(Feel free to edit your comment to add detail instead of replying; keeps the thread shorter that way.)

And if we solve this problem, then maybe we'll still have a technological civilization in 100,000 years to solve that one.

Seems we already solved that one, just 100,000 years early.

How does a rotating sphere, orbiting around another sphere every reach "maximal energy absorbing posture"?

I'm a layman, but my mental model suggests that tidal-lock would be the relationship that raises the energy most on the receiving body. An example of that concept would be Mercury.

A tidally-locked body would have nearly 50% of its area "cold," in other words it is not radiating any heat from the primary heat source out into space. Only heat reaching the cold side from atmospheric convection or internal conduction would be able to reach space. In Mercury's case, the lack of significant atmosphere reduces the flow of heat from the warm side to the cold side.

A spheroid with any given amount of surface area exposed to equal heat / cold has the highest chance of preserving equilibrium. If that logic is true, correcting Earth's axis tilt should slightly increase the amount of energy radiated away. That would also produce more consistent temperatures between the equators and poles (raising sea levels by reducing the amount of frozen water proportionally). Needless to say that would have nearly incalculable side effects.

The other day I had a random urge to Google why sea levels are actually rising, and I learned that it's not a result of melting ice. Melting ice and rising sea levels are both the result of rising temperatures. The sea absorbs the heat and expands.

However, the loss of ice does accelerate the warming because less light is reflected from the earth.

I don't think that right. The hotter side would radiate more than if the same amount of energy were distributed over the whole planet surface.

Yes, there is a simple puzzle that makes use of this. When carrying coffee back to the office, how do you insure that the coffee will be the hottest, by putting in the cream at Starbucks or back at the office?

A hotter object loses heat faster than a cooler object.

It's actually a fourth power relationship to temperature. See Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the details.