How to deal with Global Warming?

[BeBMan]

Public single choice

[Bereta_Eder]

Stop farting

[Bereta_Eder]

Seriously I do believe that something must be done and banning platsic straws is just trying to pacify the natives it does absoloutely zero while industry continues its destriuctive savago-capitalist deeds unintertered

[Thoth]

Mostly ignore it while making a few performative changes and hoping it goes away.

[Berzerker]

the sunscreen idea is good, even if we lose the ability to change or remove it cosmic rays will eat it up in a few decades or centuries

but I'm not sure we should deal with global warming, I think its a good thing for life in general and Nasa has data on how global warming so far is greening the world

we know what happened not too long ago, the little ice age was devastating and that was just a taste of the cooling we could be facing without our ghgs warming us up.

I think its probably beyond our control, mother earth has cyclical episodes of belching out gas and when big eruptions along the equator become more common the world cools, our CO2 is much cleaner so it warms

seas will rise but there will be more water in the cycle. Deserts get cold at night because they lack water vapor to trap the day's heat. I wonder if records show a larger than average increase in night time temps in Las Vegas.

we need widespread desalinization and a sunshade

[Uncle Sparky]

I refuse to believe Berz favours de-stalinization.

[Berzerker]

no no, its denazification

[BeBMan]

Which would have worked if Putin hadn't armed the Nazis, as Meduza revealed.

[Geronimo]

From the "Skynet test successful" thread, Aeson's contribution.

No killing required. It's about C sequestration. No need for any specific 100 million to change, other than it's not those already doing better, of which there are some. Though of course the worst have the most room to improve, but are the least likely to do so.

1ppm CO2 is 2.13 gigatonnes C. So to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm we need to sequester 213 gt C. We also need to sequester about 6 gt C per year to offset ongoing emissions if they stay roughly as they are. (The ocean naturally sequesters the remaining 6 gt C from 12 gt C overall emissions). So to catch up over the course of 20 years we need to sequester 333 gt C in that timeframe.

Degraded land like I am working with sequesters roughly 0 C. Tropical forest without management perpetually sequesters about 200 t C. It can reach that level within about 20 years. Temperate forest can sequester more, up to 750 t C, but does so slower. Wetlands and peat bogs can sequester more but on very long time frames and with less economic output. Managed forest, with forest litter and deadwood turned to biochar produces energy and can over time increase sequestration as much as we want. Pyrolysis of wood turns roughly 1/3 C content to biochar which is stable C that can persist over 1000s of years in soil while increasing soil fertility (as in terra preta).
Turning degraded land that was deforested back to forest, we just need 1.66 billion hectares to sequester that 333 gt C. There are roughly 2 to 4 billion hectares of land that have been deforested over the course of human history. Much of it is now degraded.

Forest can also be very productive agriculturally. We can produce 10 kg/sq m/y of nutritionally dense food in a tropical setting. Over 1.66 billion hectares that would be 166 gt food per year. Enough to feed 1 tonne a year to 166 billion people. Even with 50% wastage we only need to do less than 10% that. There are currently 5 billion hectares used in agriculture.

Producing food this way requires no synthetic inputs. No pesticides, no herbicides, no fungicides. At most 1 tilling (ever), but can be done with 0​​​​​. It doesn't need fuel inputs, and can actually produce C neutral fuel (biogas, wood gas, waste heat from pyrolysis). It would decrease emissions (to the extent consumers chose to use the output rather than from industrial ag) from the agricultural sector which is responsible for 15 to 20% of total emissions.

So 100 million people each reforesting 16.6 hectares tropical degraded lands is all that's needed from a C cycle perspective.

At $1/kg farm gate price for food, that gives those people a potential income of from (at 10% max output) $166000/year on up. At $100/t CO2 sequestered (the target for direct carbon capture) it would also be $60,000/year for the 20 year runup to 200 t C per hectare.

There are currently 2.6 billion people of prime working age worldwide with no work. There are 3 billion more who make $5/day or less. Surely at least 100 million would jump at the chance if we as a species cared to let them, give them access to the land and training (a few YouTube videos is enough), and advance them the money to get started.

​I am convinced it would not stop it mainly due to developing an area as large as north America to do so while costing net 3.5 trillion annually besides but it could be the most important single strategy.

[Geronimo]

the sunscreen idea is good, even if we lose the ability to change or remove it cosmic rays will eat it up in a few decades or centuries

but I'm not sure we should deal with global warming, I think its a good thing for life in general and Nasa has data on how global warming so far is greening the world

we know what happened not too long ago, the little ice age was devastating and that was just a taste of the cooling we could be facing without our ghgs warming us up.

I think its probably beyond our control, mother earth has cyclical episodes of belching out gas and when big eruptions along the equator become more common the world cools, our CO2 is much cleaner so it warms

seas will rise but there will be more water in the cycle. Deserts get cold at night because they lack water vapor to trap the day's heat. I wonder if records show a larger than average increase in night time temps in Las Vegas.

we need widespread desalinization and a sunshade

Even if warming were a good thing, relatively rapid warming on a thoroughly settled and developed earth is definitely not.

[Berzerker]

If? Depends on the settlers and there aint many in colder parts of the world. One of the good things about global warming is the higher latitudes warm up more than the equator and tropics. This is not rapid warming, not even close. Whatever the reason, we had a recent cold snap that accompanied the Plague starting around 1350 AD (connection?), the cold was worst around 1600-50 and ended in the mid 1800s. So that appears cyclical, maybe solar output dipped or volcanic eruptions increased and declined and do so on the regular. With all these objects in our sky tugging on us constantly from different directions the Earth reacts with slow motion tides of magma.

So we're coming out of a cold period lasting 500 years, we should be warming. Now in 'recent' times the most rapid cooling and warming appears associated with the start and end of the Younger Dryas (12900-11600 bp - Plato's Atlantis was 9600 BC). The cooling was fast but the warming at the end may have been even faster, ~10 C in a lifetime or even a generation in Greenland. How much have we warmed in 200 years, maybe 1-2 C? Obviously the colder it is will create a better potential for more warming and a shock to the system - a shock to life adapted to colder climates.

[PLATO]

We will deal with it but it won't be easy. Desalination of the ocean's may cause the Gulf Stream to fail within just a couple of years (Worst case of course, but nonetheless...). This will cause a severe drop in temperatures in the Atlantic North (Canada, USA, Europe). Unfortunately, this will probably lead to an increase in greenhouse gases as those areas burn more fuel to stay warm...further destabilizing world wide climate. The good news is that it is not any king of extinction level event (unless you live on a low lying Pacific Island...or maybe even coastal Florida for example) for the human race. People will adapt to living a different way and technology will continue to advance. Eventually people will begin to reclaim the Planet and hopefully we will come out better on the other side. The next few generations could have a completely different life than we do now....

[Berzerker]

The collapse of the heat pump blamed for the Younger Dryas was allegedly caused by Lake Agassiz in Canada (and other massive glacial lakes) draining north into the Arctic and N Atlantic as the ice sheet retreated. Much of the water had been draining down the river systems to the south (MIssissippi, Ohio, Missouri) so cold water warmed and became saltier before reaching the Gulf of Mexico. I believe this happened before the land bridge Beringia sank below the Pacific Ocean so the Arctic was more isolated back then. Only Greenland harbors enough ice/water to replicate that assuming ofc its even possible given the heat exchange coming thru the Bering Sea now.

How does desalinating ocean water cause all that? Ocean becomes a tiny bit saltier as fresh water is transferred temporarily to land. I dont think we'll be taking enough water to do much of anything other than feed crops and people. Sea rise will be our main problem - and the migrations it causes. But for life in general, a warmer world is a boon. Nasa has shown the world is greening as we warm.

[self biased]

I mean, we could abandon capitalism, but then who would think about those poor, unfortunate billionaires and the shareholders?

[Berzerker]

capitalism is just a legal way to make money off killing people

[Dauphin]

Nasa has shown the world is greening as we warm.

I don’t know where you get this from, but you are missing a key fact. The greening is concentrated in China and India, and is believed to be coming from intensive agriculture to feed larger populations, and reforestation programs. Not as a natural response to a warmer climate.

[The Mad Monk]

Let's face it, it's not capitalism, it's industrialization. All advanced economic systems have done it, whether capitalist pig or commie mommy flavored.

[Berzerker]

I don’t know where you get this from, but you are missing a key fact. The greening is concentrated in China and India, and is believed to be coming from intensive agriculture to feed larger populations, and reforestation programs. Not as a natural response to a warmer climate.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

​