Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Naturally, seismology provides the answer.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



CO2 Ice Cap

Mars does it naturally
(+4, -4)
  [vote for,

One way to fight global warming is something called "carbon sequestering" ==locking away carbon dioxide in one form or another, to keep it from accumulating in the atmosphere.

On Mars the atmosphere, what little it has, is mostly carbon dioxide, and we see that Mars has polar ice caps that shrink and grow with the annual seasons, much like on Earth. Except on Mars the ice caps (the part that shrinks and grows) are carbon dioxide ("dry ice"), while on Earth the ice caps are made of plain water ice.

It happens that the winters in Antarctica are typically ALMOST cold enough to cause atmospheric carbon dioxide to precipitate ("snow") out of the air. What if we enhanced that?

Imagine some giant refrigeration units installed in Antarctia. I'll talk about powering them later. The basic process of refrigeration is pretty simple: Take some gas and compress it. It gets hotter as a result. Let the hot gas cool back to room temperature. Now let the cooled compressed gas expand--it becomes even cooler! This cooler gas is used to absorb heat from its surroundings. By separating the area where we let the hot gas cool from the area where we want the cool gas to absorb heat, we can do air conditioning or food-freezing and so on.

In Antarctica, we would want the hot compressed gas to be passed through special radiators designed to radiate infrared heat directly upward to Space. Skies over Antarctica are clear enough often enough that this should be quite feasible. The cooled expanded gas we now use to absorb ordinary molecular-motion heat from the Antarctic environment.

If that environment can be cooled by as little as 10 degrees Celsius on the coldest days of winter, then carbon dioxide snow will start to precipitate out of the air, and cover the ordinary water-snow already covering the landscape.

The more CO2 we can get out of the air this way, the less CO2 there will be in the air to cause global warming in the Northern Hemisphere. This will allow the northern ice cap (and glaciers) to start to grow again.

In order to keep the frozen CO2 sequestered, it may be necessary to do some variation on this theme, such as build large in-the-ice storage tanks and fill them with dry ice (and keep them refrigerated in the summer, without trying to add more CO2 to them). It is likely that the year-round average temperature of the interior of the polar ice cap is also close to the freezing point of CO2, and so only modest refrigeration should be required to keep the dry ice frozen.

For powering all this, we need to keep in mind that power plants are far from 100% efficient, and so generate a great deal of "waste heat". We don't want that heat anywhere near our Antarctic refrigeration units! So we should build appropriate power plants (like maybe nuclear reactors that don't produce CO2) far from there, perhaps in Chile, and appropriate power lines to carry the power to the refrigeration units.

Vernon, Oct 23 2009

CO2 freezing point http://wiki.answers..._for_carbon_dioxide
FYI [Vernon, Oct 23 2009]

(?) Average Antarctic Temperature http://www.antarcti...ather/climate.shtml
Earth really isn't far from being Mars-like in this way. [Vernon, Oct 23 2009]

Vostok Solid-State Sequestation Vostok_20Solid-State_20Sequestation
Seems rather similar? [vincevincevince, Oct 26 2009]

Northwest Passage http://geology.com/...hwest-passage.shtml
Arguments AGAINST the existence of global warming should try to explain why existing polar ice is melting. Are any of those arguing paying attention to the fact that melting ice absorbs a lot of heat? That is, those recent cool years could be caused by melting ice (except for 2008, which is directly explainable by diminshed solar activity). [Vernon, Oct 27 2009]

Ban the kettle, cut down all the killer trees. http://www.timesonl.../article6879251.ece
[coprocephalous, Oct 27 2009]


       Logistically impossible. I would say that the only way to cool antarctica more would be to block sunlight from space. But that's right, it already recieves no sunlight during the winter!
DIYMatt, Oct 23 2009

       I initially thought you wanted to cool large regions of antarctica such that CO2 fell out of the air as snow and lay there. Maybe create dark CO2 valleys like the dark ice valleys in the moon. Be careful if you go down in there! I dig it. But then this talk of tanks - it looks like you want to facilitate CO2 freezers by taking advantage of cold ambient temperatures which is more prosaic and less scifi.   

       I think that the energy savings from the already cold environment would be offset by the energy required to accomodate doing anything in antarctica. One would better use that energy at the source of high carbon output places like coal plants, many of which generate energy on site and so have it locally available.
bungston, Oct 23 2009

       [bungston], it is a fact that the quantities of heat energy pumped about, by refrigeration equipment, can be far greater than the amount of energy it takes to do the pumping.   

       It is also reasonable that the amount of heat that can be radiated to Space depends on how concentrated the heat is. That's why this Idea can work in the middle of 6 months of darkness. What little heat energy is in the air gets concentrated by compression, and therefore it can now escape more easily.
Vernon, Oct 23 2009

       Note, if there was a significant land mass at the North Pole, I'd have suggested putting refrigeration units there, too. Maybe on Greenland? (Now you can crack jokes about selling refrigerators to Eskimos.)
Vernon, Oct 23 2009

       vernon. oh. One reason why the CO2 caps can survive on mars is the the very fact that there is so little atmosphere. A thick dense and mobile atmosphere powerfully moderates the local temperatures. Your Chilean atomic power, antarctic gas condensation plan is a hoot. Consider just one issue:   

       condensing water steals the bulk of the energy, needs constant removal. To be efficient the system needs fresh air all the time, bringing fresh water with it.   

       Ok so it's a half baked idea, but it's also a no brained idea: If you have a nuclear plant and you don't use it to SHUT DOWN a CO2 liberating power facility then you've just shot yourself in the foot to prepare for a long hike.
WcW, Oct 23 2009

       Can't we just all wait for the next ice age?   

       You know, that one that everyone was confidently predicting, oh, fifteen twenty years ago, when we didn't understand the complexities of the atmosphere and erroneously thought we'd found evidence for the onset of global cooling?
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 23 2009

       [WcW], every single proposed carbon sequestering scheme requires power for one part of the process or another. That means additional power plants need to be build to accommodate the scheme, period. Logically, therefore, those power plants should not add to the CO2 problem, regardless of whether or not they can also diminish existing existing quantities of CO2 production.   

       And remember, the whole point of any carbon sequestering idea is simply that there is too much CO2 in the air right now. You can disagree with that claim, fine. But don't think for a minute that if the claim is true, then simply replacing all CO2-emitting power sources is the only needed solution, because natural CO2 removal processes don't work quite that fast. So, if the claim is true, then we need both a sequestering scheme and power to run it.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], due to the complexities of the issue, it is not certain whether or not the Earth would right now be entering an Ice Age, EXCEPT for all that CO2 we've put into the air over the last few centuries....
Vernon, Oct 24 2009

       nothing is cheaper and faster than stopping emissions. trying to re-capture the CO2 after it escapes and mingles in the atmosphere is totally foolish.
WcW, Oct 24 2009

       //nothing is cheaper and faster than stopping emissions//   

       Exactly. That's why we should do nothing, for speed and economy.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 24 2009

       That gets our votes.
8th of 7, Oct 24 2009

       Once you've stopped emitting geologic carbon entirely you can contemplate a scheme that involves nuclear powered refrigerators.
WcW, Oct 25 2009

       What if the emissions were immediately combined - mid emit, as it were - with another chemical that made it non-CO² but something else, perhaps heavier or magnetic or pink, so that it can be identified and captured at that point rather than escape into the air to be free like a bird.
Ian Tindale, Oct 25 2009

       Please see <link> to Vostok Solid-State Sequestation
vincevincevince, Oct 26 2009

       <mumble>.... a cube of CO2 measuring 10km on each side should about take care of the excess, give or take a few km depending on temperature (liquid/solid). Sounds almost doable, dunnit.
FlyingToaster, Oct 26 2009

       {image of UB standing in a dessert wasteland thermometer in hand: "ok, there's enough data now!"}
WcW, Oct 26 2009

       Honestly UBie there is nothing to say that encouraging a "natural" trend in global climate couldn't overshoot into widespread ecological collapse. Widespread extinction is a part of the non-human geologic history. If in 500 years 80% of all species (that's a generous number) had died due to a COMBINATION of cyclical AND human generated climate change we would not look like very good stewards. Furthermore your logic is:   

       "Looks like there is a brick wall in the road ahead, even if I brake hard now there's no way for me to stop, however it is a little foggy and I have never driven this road before so possibly I am just imagining the wall and thus should keep accelerating."
WcW, Oct 26 2009

       //This is the eleventh year in a row that the Earth's average temperature has actually cooled since the 1998 peak.// Is that true? What's the authoritative source of this information?   

       On the "we just don't know" question - yes, that may be the case - but is it important, in terms of political will to increase efficiencies and as a driver for new, less wasteful technology?   

       From the consensus I understand (and no, I've not seen the underlying data either, so who knows) but we should be entering a cyclic period of cooling - based on a 12,000 year "wobble" in the earth's orbit - and, if you only take that factor into consideration, there's cause for concern - there are however plenty of other factors including albedo, sunspot activity and atmospheric composition that muddy the waters. No we don't know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be interested - and, sadly - when it comes to communicating scientific research to the public, the story of "general and continuing inquiry" tends to be replaced with one of "alarming fact" - but that's not (necessarily) the scientist's fault, but perhaps more to do with what sells newspapers.
zen_tom, Oct 26 2009

       //eleventh year in a row that the Earth's average temperature has actually cooled//   

       It's probably been cooling longer than that. Much of the peak is due to the fact that the weather stations with the longest histories tended to built on the outskirts of modest towns which have since expanded to engulf them, giving a known local warming on the order of a degree or two. This effect is often corrected for, but the correction factor itself is very dubious.   

       In general, records from areas that have remained undeveloped tend to show random mid-term variations rather than a uniform rise.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 26 2009

       but we can be confident that overall atmospheric affects are real. Greenhouse effects are very real. Atmospheric CO2 data is robust and reliable. We can examine the potential effects of CO2 levels increasing 30-40% and see that it would have a dramatic effect on surface temperatures. Unless you can refute the concept of the greenhouse effect entirely then rising CO2 levels have to concern you. There is no ambiguity there. Even if every other factor is in favor of global cooling there is a critical greenhouse level where surface temperatures rise, ice melts everywhere and the world as we know it will change dramatically. No debate.
WcW, Oct 26 2009

       I'm sure we're increasing atmospheric CO2; I'm sure that increasing it enough would raise global temperatures.   

       I think it's somewhat likely that we may be already doing this.   

       However, the predictions for the effect of man-made CO2 on atmospheric temperatures vary by a factor of about 7 (and that's ignoring the outliers), which means that we really have no idea at all. In other words, the current models are truly meaningless. We really don't understand.   

       Actual measurements of climate change show no overall effect which is attributable to humanogenic CO2 (ie, they show no change which tracks CO2 levels and which is widespread - this applies to sea level, percentage global ice cover, net glacier mass, violent weather effects...).   

       There are some climate changes, but none of them tracks CO2 (eg, some changes have reversed for several years or decades while CO2 rises steadily). Most of the long-term changes show a continuity dating back to well before industrial CO2 became significant.   

       Of course the climate changes - the "little ice age" (which ran from about AD1000 to AD1800) certainly wasn't humanogenic, and was far more extreme than any global change seen since.   

       Now, having said all that, as someone pointed out, if the planet's getting warmer, then we might want to oppose that regardless of whether it's man-made or not. But we truly have no idea of how to do that, and trying to reduce CO2 levels is quite possibly going to make no difference whatsoever. In the meantime, billions (probably trillions) of dollars are being spent on this.   

       Twenty or thirty years ago, all "reputable" climatologists thought we would soon be entering a new "little ice age". Now, of course, we can laugh at them for getting it so wrong. Thank goodness we understand the climate well enough to know better today, and thank goodness we can be sure that we won't be laughed at in another thirty years' time.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 26 2009

       so you dispute the notion that CO2 levels are rising. Or do you dispute what impact higher CO2 levels would have. Historic climactic foibles aside (as that is a fallacious argument) either you believe that we can predict the impact of higher heat trapping on the surface of the earth, or you don't. You have double glazed windows, right?
WcW, Oct 26 2009

       Oh dear. I'm just trying to state an alternative point of view, hopefully without making anyone angry. To answer your questions:   

       // you dispute the notion that CO2 levels are rising.// No, I said: //I'm sure we're increasing atmospheric CO2// (see my last anno).   

       //do you dispute what impact higher CO2 levels would have// No, I said: //I'm sure that increasing it enough would raise global temperatures// (sorry, i should have said that more clearly perhaps).   

       //Historic climactic foibles* aside (as that is a fallacious argument) either you believe that we can predict the impact of higher heat trapping on the surface of the earth, or you don't.//   

       Well, I'm not sure why the previous history of the climate is a fallacious foible.   

       However, I am pretty sure that we *can't* predict the impact of etc etc. If you had a model which, 20 years ago predicted global cooling, and which, *today*, predicts temperature changes varying by a factor of seven, would you call that a useful model? It's silly - of course it's not a model.   

       Like I said, anthropogenic global warming might be real (now, or in the future). So might global cooling. The real problem is that we haven't got the foggiest (or rainiest, or snowiest) idea.   

       Heaven forfend that I should be considered a global warming denier. I hear there are stiff penalties.   

       [*strictly speaking, a climactic foible would be a sexual oddity; a climatic foible, perhaps?]
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 26 2009

       Thanks for posting the link [vincevincevince]. I thought I was getting a severe case of deja vu, and kept checking the posting dates, especially on the *yawn* so last century greenhouse denial FUD annos.
BunsenHoneydew, Oct 26 2009

       so basically you agree with every reason why there is general concern about CO2 emissions but you feel that the potential danger is minimal. Why? Global climatic disaster is easily triggered by vulcanism, a human made volcano should have identical effects, right? And if I could lay out a set of evidence that indicates that there is a rough equivalency between historic geologic events and the current projected human impacts you would be concerned by that, correct?   

       Ground weather station inaccuracy due to urbanization is given as a cause for bad temperature data, but much of the current data comes from satellites. Would you revoke that argument if presented with contradictory satellite data?   

       Sea water temps are easily reliably tested and backed by literally hundreds of years of worldwide data, is this information adequate to get you concerned about a changing climate?   

       What kind of data would motivate you to support doing everything humanly possible to reverse the trend? Is there any level of evidence that would persuade you that the consequences of not acting, today, would lead to mass extinctions?
WcW, Oct 26 2009

       OK OK, so point or link me to the data in question, and I'll point or link you to equally compelling data in the other direction.   

       Let me reverse your question. What kind of evidence would cause you to dismiss anthropogenic global warming? If I told you that the models are innaccurate by a factor of 7 - you'd say "nevermind the models". If I told you that temperatures have been falling for the last few years, you'd say "minor fluctuations on an underlying trend". If I told you that global temperatures have spent as much time opposing the upward CO2 trend as they have going down, you'd say "transient variables". If I told you that there have been far greater climate swings before the industrial revolution, you'd say "no matter". If I told you that, on a geological timescale, global temperature shows no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels, you'd say "ah, yes, but...". If I told you that the number of tornadoes, droughts, floods, or heatwaves was pretty constant, you'd say what? If I told you that as many places are reporting unusually cold weather as unusually warm, you'd say that "global warming isn't that simple."   

       I'm not saying that anthropogenic global warming is out of the question. I'm just pointing out that there is absolutely nothing that could happen which would convince you that anthropogenic global warming *isn't* happening. It's a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It's a religion.   


       OK - let me turn it around and ask *you* two questions. (1) What data would convince you that anthropogenic global warming *isn't* happening, within, say, ten years? (2) in what way are we so much smarter and surer now (that global warming is happening) than we were 30 years ago (when we were on the brink of a new ice age)?
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 26 2009

       that is simply a false assumption. I could easily be persuaded that global warming wasn't happening. You could show me evidence of stable or declining seawater temperatures, snowcap increase, CO2 decrease, Total Earth Infrared Data, Asmospheric Polarized Infrared, Biological obervations (later first hatch). In fact ANY data indicating that the trend in overall energy retention isn't upward. Please provide this data, in a peer reviewed format. Please.   

       In addition let me point out that the 1970's "global ice age" was not a scientific consensus, the ability to collect global data simply was not available then and many scientists were already concerned that the impact of industrialization would be global warming. Who could project the rate of 3rd world industrialization or the buffering capacity of oceans and vegetation. Science HAS significantly advanced.
WcW, Oct 27 2009

       Guys, the big problem with Global Warming is that it was a convenient excuse to get people to do what it is plainly obvious they should be doing anyway: cutting down on pollution, using energy wisely and protecting forests. I honestly do not care if Global Warming is fact or fiction because the actions taken to counteract it are jolly good things to do.
vincevincevince, Oct 27 2009

       //Please provide this data, in a peer reviewed format.// OK, will do. Can you tell me what you have access to? (I mean, do you have access to the journals?).   

       In the meantime, I think everyone agrees that most of the indicators you ask for (particularly temperatures) *are falling*. CO2 is definitely *rising*. If CO2 is continuing to rise while temperatures fall over a decade or so, doesn't that say something?   

       Yes, there *may* be anthropogenic global warming due to CO2. But, based on the available data, if people really wanted to help the environment, they'd be campaigning for population reduction over the next century (which is more or less guaranteed to alleviate a wide spectrum of environmental impacts), rather than costly and ineffective CO2 reductions which are unlikely to have much (if any) impact.   

       By the way, do you know that the *same* models which predict global warming also predict that the full implementation of all current carbon reduction targets will indeed reduce global temperatures? Do you know by how *much* it is predicted to reduce global temperatures, relative to a "business as usual" model? Less than 0.2 degrees Celsius. And that's a full implementation.   

       Anyway, I can tell you're getting angry, and I know how you feel. Everyone (including me) has ideas that they hold to with certainty - that's what makes people human.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2009

       Humbug. I know for a fact that I don't have such ideas, and you will never convince me otherwise.
spidermother, Oct 27 2009

       Maybe we buy all the artificially flavored artificially colored carbonated chemical water... and ship it to Antarctica where it will stay cold. I don't know why anyone DRINKS that stuff in mass quantities, after breathing it out after using oxygen. It's kind of like drinking loo lemonade - haha - "Eau before Pee except after Tea".   

       If an ice age happens, we just blow up Coke Mountain, and undo our mistake. I think greenhouses are pretty compared to the concrete desert cities that somehow manage to feed millions of people who play Solitaire in offices. They are VERY GREEN! Like Paradise I guess. Imagine some tropical island with a volcano, covered in flowers and trees, turning CO2 into O2 and plenty of H2O around. And if there is really too much N2O then it should really be a happy place because we'd be ROFLOAO's on all that goofy gas.   

       If Antarctica and Iceland melt, well, most of the ice is floating in those polar regions and not much on the land. There isn't even that much land away from the poles. 75% of the earth is ocean. Deep ocean. If you build a mile high snowman at the North Pole, how thin does it stretch around the equator? No way will the ocean rise a mile, the earth is a FAT (NOT FLAT) SPHERE! If the ice melts it gets smaller. Water is weird, it is smaller as a liquid than a solid or gas, which is why ice floats on the ocean and clouds float like Helium Balloons in the sky! And, salt molecules interlace with water molecules so that if there is enough salt in water you can't sink or drown in it (Salt Lake, Dead Sea). If you dilute the ocean not much would happen either especially since the ice shrunk.   

       I think if the ice caps melt it will rain a lot in the Sahara Desert, and the land bridge will appear between Russia and Alaska because the shrinking ice can only lower the sea level, especially since the deserts will become WET and stuff will grow there just like a rain forest.   

       Who fooled us into eating pollution and condemning the greenness phenomenon in greenhouses in the name of GREEN itself? That is a very bizarre religion to believe in.   

       I love solar panels and hate oil but only because of pollution. If oil is a fossil fuel and fossils are from dinosaurs and plants which ate carbon and grew very large then they THRIVED on carbon. Maybe Methuselah (famous for having lived 969 years) lived in a greenhouse world. Is Venus a greenhouse world? Mars has water and carbon dioxide but apparently much less of it than it used to, but Venus atmosphere is HOT SULFURIC ACID which ate the space probes that went there in a few minutes, just enough time to send a picture when they landed.   

       MAYBE carbonated water IS GOOD FOR YOU. Are we living longer with it or without it? I'm not sure though, since if you put baby teeth in it, they dissolve in about a week.   

       The world will probably end because humanity becomes suicidally depressed and succumbs to the delusion that they don't deserve the gifts of "mother nature". This kind of thinking obviously hates the GREEN GREENNESS of GREENHOUSES, and the gases of life and joy in them.   

       Behold, the CONVENIENT LIE: Sequester your carbon; Hold your breath and die!
mr2560, Oct 27 2009

       Nobody in their right mind would have used ozone depleting propellants had they known the consequences. Imagine where we would be today if CFC's hand come into vogue in the 1920's. We made a serious mistake, detected the damage it was doing and corrected the problem. Nobody debates the scientific merits of the ozone depletion "theory" or the link between UV and cancer. What if the data about the ozone layer had not been available? Would we have figured out what was wrong? How? I guess my point is that we know now that humans are capable of doing can have dramatically negative effects on our own well being and that there is a very narrow margin for chemical mistakes. If the scientific consensus is that emitting geologic carbon today will mean that my great grand children will live on a planet that will not have reflective ice caps, I take that as seriously as an Australian contemplating a long day in the sun without protection. I have access to all the glossies that are available at the library of a top 100 US state university. If information about the long term impacts of CO2 contradicts the widely held scientific consensus, I want to read it.
WcW, Oct 27 2009

       WcW, I think the argument about ozone depletion is probably less relevant than the discussion about past climate change, which you ruled out of court.   

       The scientific consensus favoured global cooling a couple of decades ago (actually, only the "public" scientific consensus did, because it was a good story). Now the scientific consensus (again, the "public" one) favours global warming.   

       Anyway, if you want the citations for peer-reviewed data, just let me know what journals you have access to and I'll dig some out.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2009

       "Sire, forsooth, hast thou not noticed the mildness of this mediaeval weather that we are, gadzooks, having?"   

       "Why yes, Court Climatologist, I hast. Yesterday it was toasty warm, egads!"   

       "Sire, we haveth modelledde this straynge phenomenon. It appeareth that Roddeny ye Blackesmithe is to blayme. We muste henceforthe reduce our consumption of iron producttes by some thirtty percent within ye nexte decade, or the World will be Roast."   

       "And thou arte surely certinne that this Warmthe cannot be attributed to the fakt that it is ye middle of July?"   

       "Sire, we have allowedde for thatte."   

       "Ande how muche shalle this temperaturre increase be?"   

       "Our moddelles precisely predict a rise of summewhere between one fifthe of a degreey centigrade, and ninety- sevenne degrees centigrade. We calle this phenomenonne 'Worldly Heating', sire."   

       "Gadzooks and little fishes, Court Climatologist. Lette us proclaim henceforth and heretofore thatte alle blacksmithes shall cease to make hotness."   

       "Butte Sire...."   

       <to be continnuyed>
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2009

       dessert waistland indeed.
dentworth, Oct 27 2009

       Peasant: Hollde onne a minuttte! Itte's notte that Blackfmiffse are forbode from hotnesse - it shoudde be thatte ye Fmiffes are encouragged to upgrayyed yeir forjes from yeese fhitte onef to yese loverly new fhiny forjess from whychhe ityms of muchhe improved qualyty are forjed, at greatlyye reduced coft in termf of ye limited reyorces of the Kynggedom. Sire! With fome form of govyernmental schymme, we coullde impryve ye conditions of ye maffef to suchhe an eyxtentte thatt all shalle apeayr to be furnifhed with golde! <aside> Shoullde ye Kyngedomme be so bleffed with such technological wonderf, our landde woullde become a grayte and powerfullle nation, capablle of callinge ye shottes, inne terms both economik and polytik.
zen_tom, Oct 27 2009

       Gadzooks, butte thou artest right. (Ande, by goddes grayce, I hast many shayres in ye new forge companye!).   

       Butte we must *telle* ye people thatte ye olde forges shalle cause ye Worldly Heating, elsth they shalstest ne'er makestethethest ye chaynge.   

       Oh, and prithee gette thine lifp attended to, for thou foundeft ftupidde.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2009

       Medaieaival fpelling fucks.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2009

       I can't think of any journal that would be specifically outside my purview. Ozone is fair game because we needn't discuss the "controversy" only the data, the action taken, and the end result. Twice as much ozone would be fine. Half as much would really suck. Same very simple logic can be applied to atmospheric CO2.
WcW, Oct 28 2009

       // I can't think of any journal that would be specifically outside my purview.// Have you got access to Geology, Nature, Climate Change, Progress in Physical Geography, J. Glaciology, J. Climate, etc?   

       What I mean is that I don't want to spend time digging out the refs if you mean that you have access to popular science magazined like Sci.Am. or New Scientist.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 28 2009

       Anyway, for starters, maybe Nature 415, 517-520; PNAS 95, 12753-58; Nature 423, 528-531; Geophys.Res. Lett. 23, 527- 530; J. Climate 11, 3069-94....
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 28 2009

       [vincevincevince], I did look around a bit to see if this Idea had been previously posted. I might have found it if I had looked in a different category --or perhaps if your Idea had been posted to this category.   

       I'd like to think SOME of the details are different enough that this Idea might be allowed to survive. Let Jutta decide.
Vernon, Oct 28 2009

       //@[MB] was able to read all the ref.s you provided on climate change, ex. the Journal of Geology bits. Simply wasn't able to get online access to that due to lack of contact with people in the geology department. Good information, however I don't feel that any of the articles provided good solid ground for continuing GHG emissions at anything like current levels. I actually found that generally speaking all the articles were very clear that additional warming pressure was quite possible while the unknowns for cooling pressure were more on the global catastrophe scale (massive vulcanism, greater than ever recorded decreases in solar strength, etc.) I did appreciate getting some basis for the "uncertainty principal".// This anno was posted on an unrelated idea, in reference to this one, by [WcW]   

       [WcW] You have my admiration for taking the trouble to read the references - hardly anyone does. Yes, none of them are "anti-GW", but they all point out the complexity of the data and variability in interpretation.   

       My main point is that the religion of Global Warming has far outstripped the science. There is no evidence that global warming is occurring yet, only models which *predict* global warming in response to the undeniable anthropogenic CO2 increases. Yet these models disagree by huge factors, and would be considered worthless in any other field. Moreover, I strongly suspect that models that fail to predict global warming are either tinkered with by their creators until they show the "correct" result, or simply never get past peer review.   

       Think of the money being poured into climate change mitigation: trillions spent on improved technology, billions given as subsidies, more billions given to developing countries to help them avoid becoming CO2 giants, millions spent on public awareness.   

       If that money were instead spent on population control (NOT coercion, but simply ensuring that everyone had access to contraception; that everyone was aware of the effects of population growth; even offering financial incentives for small families), we would reduce not just CO2 production, but every other adverse human impact on the planet.   

       Population growth is real, measurable, extreme, and has already had a wide range of undeniably adverse effects here and now which make global warming pale into insignificance. Population reduction is a much more urgent and addressable need than reducing only our CO2 outputs.   

       It always makes me sad when people say "We want to save the planet for our children." without appreciating the irony of such a remark.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 03 2009

       <snigger also> Yes, but in economic modelling, the model is the instrument of change: happy model > market confidence > market growth > model fulfilled! The same is not true in the scrying of climates.   

       (Actually, perhaps it is. All the hot air generated by the Brethren of the Warming Globe ought to be having some effect...)
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 03 2009


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle