Climate Engineering 13
paranormalized writes "Good aricle on Climate Engineering at ChooseClimate.org. It's getting old (Nov 1996), but it makes a lot more sense than the Bacteria to Destroy Greenhouse Gasses article you posted last Thursday afternoon. And since only one other registered user posted a comment eight hours later about Oceanic fertilization with iron dust, I figured the /. crowd needed reminding of the ideas herein."
Re:Choosing our climate ... (Score:1)
Please also monitor other contaminants too. I specifically refer to heavy metals like lead.
You see in Roman times, as you may know, lead was used as an easily obtained/easily worked metal. Most of the pipes in Rome were made out of lead. (They didn't know it was bad for youat the time.) So as it turned out, there was a large number of lead smelters scattered around Europe. About 5 years ago or so (I can't remember where I heard about it), researchers were looking in the Greenland ice cores, and noticed high levels of lead around the time of the Roman Empire. It seems that the inefficient smelting plants that the Romans had put out a lot of lead particles in the fire exaust.
So just remember, if you want the atmosphere to be "like it was before the Industrial Revolution", you may happen to choose a poor baseline to start from.
Re:Choosing our climate ... (Score:1)
It doesn't take nearly that long. There is a species of mosquito that lives in the London Underground (subway) that is genetically quite different from its surface forebears. Do a google search on "london underground mosquito" to see more.
http://www.google.com/search?q=london+undergrou
Re:Choosing our climate ... (Score:1)
According to one web article:
To their amazement they found that it was almost impossible to mate those living above ground with those in the subterranean world, indicating that the genetic differences are now so great that the ones underground are well on their way to becoming a separate species.
Re:Choosing our climate ... (Score:1)
Good points. Let's make those "pre-industrial levels."
As for bureaucracies, I do not like them myself, but somehow whatever solution is reached will need some method of implementation. Unless we choose no solution, which may be the choice.
I think we need to learn more about the carbon cycle before we begin trying to permanently remove it. Maybe we need a more temporary fix, to allow the carbin to cycle more rapidly. There are so many variables.
Re:Choosing our climate ... (Score:1)
Paranormalized has a good point. I am saddened to see such intelligent commentary at level 0. I had to hunt for your reply, and it's a very thoughtful and worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
Regarding preindustrial levels I was thinking of greenhouse gas levels roughly on par with those produced by "normal" processes such as volcanic eruptions, decay of vegetable material, etc.
I do not think it is possible for us to go back to preindustrial levels of all contaminants. Some of the things we have done are irreversible. There was no plutonium in the environment before the 20th century. Plastics and modern glass/ceramics will become a part of the fossil record.
I would just hope that eventually we would give the Earth's other organisms a chance to respond in a more normal fashion to "natural" Darwinian pressures, and work towards humankind having a lower impact on natural systems.
Assuming that Earth is a unique cradle of life we'd do well to be more careful stewards of its ability to continue nurturing new forms.
An interesting side note, after a million years of so of cities assuming the theory of evolution is correct we will have organisms specifically evolved to exploit urban environments. How curious. :)
Re:Choosing our climate ... (Score:1)
How interesting.
The subway is a perfect climate for it to completely dodge winter weather. Can it still interbreed with its aboveground relatives?
Choosing our climate ... (Score:2)
I propose using ice core samples to determine the proportions of atmoshperic SO2, CO2, and methane for pre-industrial Earth circa the mid 1700's, and adopting those ratios as a goal for future climate engineering.
Nations would be responsible for donating expertise, financial resources, or physical resources as they are able, to meet a reduction in greenhouse gases in proportion to their real world consumption of products contributing to warming.
Once mid eighteenth century levels have been reached, through a program of management nations would be able to increase or decrease their greenhouse gas output to modify these ratios to keep ocean levels, icepack thickness, and world temperatures relatively consistent.
Dangerous experiments with the potential to rapidly modify the global climate, such as widescale seeding of the Antarctic ocean with iron sulphate would be prohibited without a consensus mandate of member nations.
We are getting to the point where macroscopic engineering projects are possible. I think it's important to think through the ramifications of these projects before we implement them, as our current experience demonstrates.
This is just my two cent knee-jerk reaction to the whole topic. Feedback will probably prove my comments full of holes. :)
Re:Solutions, but is there a problem? (Score:1)
Solutions, but is there a problem? (Score:3)
doh (Score:1)
Please get an account, whoever you are... (Score:1)
So please- make a fellow reader happy and register sometime soon. Then you can automatically set your comment views (when not moderating) at (3+, nested, highest first) and witness /. at it's moderated best.
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
When life gives you a bunch of options (Score:1)
Yeah, maybe Christ never existed as a historical figure. Or maybe he's heavily into reincarnation. ;) That could explain things just as well, and as a theory its a lot more fun.
My personal beliefs are odd. For instance, I don't wholeheartedly believe that all souls go directly to heaven or hell, no third options to try insteadd. I have no idea how God built his universe and afterlife, or what he built instead, but I believe He's a weird bastard that asks us to choose good or evil, and accept the consequences. I dunno why He hides His existence from us, but thats just another question to ask Him if I get the chance.;)
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
As the article submitter I must object to the dept (Score:2)
As /.-ers have pointed out, man has been playing God from the beginnings of civilization, breeding animals and crops to our desired specifications. And as Jared Diamond [ucla.edu] has pointed out so eloquently in his book, The Third Chimpanzee [cix.co.uk], man has been changing the climate and ecology(accidentally, perhaps, but changing nonetheless) of our planet since he first deforested Lebanon. If the possibility exists to reverse damages we have inflicted on the world, we have the right, and even perhaps the duty, to do so.
God himself has given man license to 'play god', so to speak, from Adam onwards. He knew what He was setting us up for when He gave us intelligence, and hopes to see us do good with our tools.
As David Brin [kithrup.com] pointed out so eloquently in his essays in the book Otherness, what does God, if He is a loving father, want of us? Does He want blind obedience, as one would from a dog rather than a child? Or does He want to see us grow and mature, taking up His tools as we grow older, creating beautiful things with them? As an avowed Christian, I must believe in a loving God who expects the latter.
This is not to say that iron fertilization is a good idea. We don't yet have anywhere near the foresight and knowledge that our Father has, and humility demands we admit this. We should definitely make plans to curb the greenhouse effect, but we need to know our limitations. Unintended consequences have a way of popping up in the oddest ways...however, we must take drastic action to prevent global warming, and climate engineering is just another tool in our toolbox, though it is a dangerous one.
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----