Climate change: Sci-fi solutions no longer in the margins

Dec 07, 2008
The desiccated bed of the river Po in Italy
View of a melting glaciar in Ecuador. With political efforts to tackle global warming advancing slower than a Greenland glacier, schemes for saving Earth's climate system that once were dismissed as crazy or dangerous are gaining in status.

With political efforts to tackle global warming advancing slower than a Greenland glacier, schemes for saving Earth's climate system that once were dismissed as crazy or dangerous are gaining in status.


Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .

Explore further: Indonesia to use rain-making technology to stop fires

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Geoengineering by coalition

Feb 21, 2013

Solar geoengineering is a proposed approach to reduce the effects of climate change due to greenhouse gasses by deflecting some of the sun's incoming radiation. This type of proposed solution carries with it a number of uncertainties, ...

Professor discusses innovation for the environment

Jan 03, 2013

David Keith is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. The award-winning scientist, who ...

Earth sunblock only needed if planet warms easily

Oct 11, 2012

(Phys.org)—An increasing number of scientists are studying ways to temporarily reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth to potentially stave off some of the worst effects of climate change. Because ...

Recommended for you

Indonesia to use rain-making technology to stop fires

4 hours ago

Indonesia plans to use weather changing technology to try to unleash torrents of rain and extinguish raging fires on Sumatra island that have cloaked neighbouring Singapore in thick haze, an official said ...

The contribution of particulate matter to forest decline

6 hours ago

Air pollution is related to forest decline and also appears to attack the protecting wax on tree leaves and needles. Bonn University scientists have now discovered a responsible mechanism: particulate matter ...

World Bank warns global warming woes closing in

8 hours ago

The World Bank on Wednesday warned that severe hardships from global warming could be felt within a generation, with a new study detailing devastating impacts in Africa and Asia.

User comments : 26

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bob_Kob
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 07, 2008
Global Warming will not harm us at all. If it does exist, and has an effect at most we will have to adapt.

However! On the other hand if we try to fix the problem by employing whatever idiotic scheme as mentioned above we are sure to cause a ecological tragedy that will take the lives of all of us.
david_42
2.8 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2008
"One reason is "the level of panic" surrounding greenhouse-gas levels, which are growing at around three percent a year and are now more than a third greater than before the Industrial Revolution, says Thomas. "

Seriously wrong. This is only the change in CO2 and other minor GHG. Water vapor is the main one and it has not changed. As a percentage of total GHG, the change in CO2 is less than 1%.
Noein
3.1 / 5 (14) Dec 07, 2008
Seriously wrong. This is only the change in CO2 and other minor GHG. Water vapor is the main one and it has not changed. As a percentage of total GHG, the change in CO2 is less than 1%.


Seriously wrong. The change in CO2 is not less than 1%. That's a denialist lie. Didn't the denialists' mothers ever teach them that lying is wrong?

http://www.realcl...-effect/

Also, H2O is a feedback, while CO2 is a forcing. Of course, I don't expect any denialist to comprehend the difference between the two. After all, they have a hard enough time grasping the distinction between "weather" and "climate."

http://www.skepti...-gas.htm
NeilFarbstein
1.3 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2008
Engineer land plants that emit dimethyl sulfoxide into the atmosphere. If they were planted on Greenland or close to the equadorean glaciers they would slow the melting.
Remember you heard it here first.

Neil Farbstein
protn7@att.net
E_L_Earnhardt
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2008
"Get rid of CARBON?" If you could you would also get rid of "LIFE"! (Check DNA and RNA formulas.)
"Shade SUNSHINE" If you could no crops would grow
All we really need to do is reduce uncontroled GREED! The careless and the Greedy will kill us!
MikeB
2.9 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2008
Here is a comparison of temperatures to CO2:

http://icecap.us/...emps.jpg

And here is the record of CO2 increases in our atmosphere since 1959. The neat thing in this graph is the fact that the zero line is the bottom line on the graph, which makes it clearer.

http://i224.photo...2000.gif
MikeB
2.4 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2008
"Also, H2O is a feedback, while CO2 is a forcing. Of course, I don't expect any denialist to comprehend the difference between the two. After all, they have a hard enough time grasping the distinction between "weather" and "climate.""

http://www.skepti...-gas.htm



Noein, I read this link and I found that the commenters below the story have a much better grasp of the intricacies of radiative forcing and water vapor feedback than you or the author seem to posess. Perhaps you should read the comments below that story.
morpheus2012
2.2 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2008
they dailly instalmet of the global warming
scam propaganda repetition is the basic

they bombard ur brain so much with this fake news until u cave in

watch and learn the truth shall set u free

http://www.youtub...PV01uyRs
gmurphy
2.9 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2008
hmmm, I'm hesitant to get involved in these "debates" as I'm well aware how pointless they are. However, I'll make the observation that the large oil companies, who fought global warming so vigorously in the 90's have now conceded that global warming is real and is caused by human pollution. Now, my point is this, if anyone has resources and motivation to "disprove" global warming, the big oil companies do and yet they don't because they have the scientific expertise to recognise the facts, as much as they dislike them. The fact is that all the criticisms people direct against global warming on this website are equally applicable to other unrelated scientific work presented on physorg. The lack of criticism directed against these articles shows that it is not the quality of the science but the subject of the science that these criticisms are directed against. Examples include using computer models to make predicitions, authors linking their work to a high profile subject to increase their chance of funding (cancer, hiv, global watming) and so on.
Velanarris
3.6 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2008
However, I'll make the observation that the large oil companies, who fought global warming so vigorously in the 90's have now conceded that global warming is real and is caused by human pollution.
Can we get a source or reference on this statement please?
MenaceSan
3.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2008
have any of these brain trusts realized that plants need sunlight?
MikeB
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2008
"The lack of criticism directed against these articles shows that it is not the quality of the science but the subject of the science that these criticisms are directed against."

That is mostly true. It's the quality AND the subject. I mostly read Space & Earth Science-Environment. I feel that the so called "science" taking place here is the most likely to rob me and many others of our freedom.
Mike Bryant
Roach
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2008
gmurphy, you don't disprove theories, you prove them. Second if Big Oil starts doing the political jockeying to get the simple minded to feel better about paying $2 or $4 or even $5 a gallon of gas that's not agreeing with anything other than simple economics and psychology. Does anyone actually believe that BP is really "Beyond Petroleum"? Or that Anyone wants to fund the infrastructure change to switch from Gasoline? A change that will be fueled by gasoline and diesel?

That said I spent this morning bashing a study on Christians and their anti Nanotech movement, based on a study of 1500 people using rigged questions to trigger an emotional response. kind of like Exxon showing a field of flowers in their commercials. Yeah that's what an oil field looks like, only less flowers and more oil pumps.
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2008
"The lack of criticism directed against these articles shows that it is not the quality of the science but the subject of the science that these criticisms are directed against."

That is mostly true. It's the quality AND the subject. I mostly read Space & Earth Science-Environment. I feel that the so called "science" taking place here is the most likely to rob me and many others of our freedom.
Mike Bryant


This is a sentiment shared by many of us who post here.

When I see things like "schemes for saving Earth's climate system that once were dismissed as crazy or dangerous are gaining in status."

I tighten up just a little bit and wonder where I can get a direct line to the people suggesting we do this. There is not enough quality science being done to make any action to affect our climate acceptable. What if these people start building orbital mirrors with our tax money, launch them into space, and suddenly, it's permanent winter in the Northern hemisphere. Now what do you do?

There are people out there putting iron blocks in the ocean to prevent the acidification of our seas. OUR SEAS ARE NOT ACIDIC! Not even close, yet they feel they're saving the planet, when all they are doing is polluting it further.

The AGW movement isn't wrong to say we need to make changes in the way we do things.

They're wrong in saying that we need to make changes RIGHT NOW. We don't need to make any changes until we understand what's going on.
gragg
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2008
There:

http://www.shell....eat.html

http://www.bp.com...=9021744&contentId=7042291

First, the petroleum industry must come up with alternative products anyway. And by arguing more or less along the lines of man-made climate change and engaging in renewable energy projects, it makes the person at the pump feel less guilty. I would probably not fill my car with the fuel of a company that plainly denies any human influence on climate change. Although it would not make a difference.
SteveS
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2008
The link did not work but I think this is one of the quotes from shell

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, one that demands an urgent worldwide response. There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use, deforestation and agriculture, are the main contributors."

http://www.shell....eat.html
Quantum_Conundrum
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2008
Yes, lets inject sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, 'cause New York Harbor freezing over and crops failing in the American midwest is sooooo preferable to an alleged 1 degree increase in temperature...


The solar shade idea also reflects the complete and utter idiocy of these scientists. Do these morons have even a remote clue of how big a shading device would need to be to have a noticable effect? The sun is 870,000 miles/ 1392000km in diameter. In order to shade a significant amount, like in any way noticeable, you'd need an umbrella device several miles, more like hundredss or miles, in diameter.

However, this device would be, by definition, a solar sail! Which means you would need ion drives or rockets continually firing to hold it in place! So this crackpot scheme is useless.

Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2008
The link did not work but I think this is one of the quotes from shell

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, one that demands an urgent worldwide response. There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use, deforestation and agriculture, are the main contributors."

http://www.shell....eat.html
Problem is there isn't a single statement in that brief quote that isn't anything more than emotionalized propaganda.
mikiwud
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2008
A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no-one believes individually.
When warmists speak with one voice it is actually only an echo.Unfortunately, as the echo dies off a new bit of bullshit keeps it going.
GrayMouser
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2008
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, one that demands an urgent worldwide response. There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use, deforestation and agriculture, are the main contributors."

http://www.shell....eat.html


That's just a IPCC/Gore quote. It doesn't prove anything other than Shell playing political and publicity games.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2008
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no-one believes individually."

Abba Eban

A politician's cynicism

The actual quote should have read

"Consensus is what many people say in chorus but do not believe as individuals."
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2008
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no-one believes individually."

Abba Eban

A politician's cynicism

The actual quote should have read

"Consensus is what many people say in chorus but do not believe as individuals."
Well your concensus of 52 people is trumped by my concensus of over 100 thousand.
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2008
"Well your concensus of 52 people is trumped by my concensus of over 100 thousand."

I'm sorry, I don't understand you comment, can you explain? It seems to be accusational but I can't work out what I said to warrent this response
erich_knight
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2008
Changing World Technologies

Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal/Biochar to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio reasearch. Thankfully we can do Terra Preta soils (TP) now.

TP soils start as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro-tech with our wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages%u2026 SIMULTANEOUSLY!

Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.

Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Fossil Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.

This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2008
Terra Preta and Biochar are not the same thing.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2009
all of a sudden there are a lot of reports on coal power being published. It still supplies 50% of the world's power and it is increasingly used in India
and china in huge amounts. Every week another another fossil fueled power plant comes online in china! It seems impossible as a result of economics to stop the growth of coal fired plants. We ought to use underground sequestration of CO2 as soon as possible and also other CO2 capture strategies in addition to changing over to solar power.

More news stories