Talk:Mitigation of global warming/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mitigation of global warming. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Man, whoever wrote the Nuclear power section must really have a hair across their ass for Nuclear energy. In all fairness, a list of advantages should be included. All that is their now is a list of disadvatanges, which isnt very encouraging. I also noticed that all of the 'problems' with nuclear power seem to be political, not technical. Whereas the problems with the other alternatives are all technical (hint, hint). I'd fix the section up myself, but I'm sure Grand Marshall Connolley would just revert it back without hesitation.

"nuclear is a highly centralised form of power, resulting in energy loss through long distance transmission" - I deleted that sentence, as their was no citation. Also I am not aware of any energy loss which is any greater than with any other form of electricity generation. (it is essentially the same as coal power in that the nuclear reactions aren't generating the electricity, but are running a turbine, which is). Also I am aware of a Plant near Houston which sends electricity to both San Antonio and Austin, which I would consider a fairly long distance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.112.253 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

NOTE:*It is highly questionable whether or not nuclear power actually decreases carbon emissions. Have you done any research on how much carbon is generated mining, smelting and transporting fuel grade uranium? Also, what do you plan to do with the waste? There is still no solution to that problem and carbon emmisions would certainly be associated with the transportation and "remediation" of nuclear fuels.* So to say that there are no technical issues associated with the use of nuclear energy is flat out wrong.

Would it be useful to mention specific organisations, like Climate Care and The Carbon Neutral Company (both UK based)? The article doesn't really mention planting forests as a mitigation method. The "Mitigation in developing countries" section could mention the kind of energy efficiency projects which Climate Care do in developing countries. And what are the equivalent organisations in other countries? i.e. Companies which you can pay to offset carbon emissions for you. Francis Irving 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear distinction between mitigation (ie, reducing CO2) and adaption (ie, how to live with warming). Probably the two concepts should be split into two articles. After all, the IPCC produed two separate reports (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/004.htm and http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/006.htm). William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 18:53:03 (UTC).

I had intended to wait until adaptation was more developed, but splitting the article sooner may encourage that, and also help the structure here. Rd232 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a third page mitigation/adaptation/avoidance? As it stands, the current wind power section is awkward under 'mitigation'. (Chrisnumbers2000 04:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

The use of the phrase "More improbable" to describe pro-active methods of mitigation is at the very least tendentious & I would be interested to see what technical reason there is to believe that they would be less likely to have a serious effect than Kyoto, whici claims only that it will reduce warming by a fraction of a degree. I would also be interested to know if there is any actual factual reason for deleting mention of stratospheric dust as a way of lowering albedo - something which Krakatoa has proven would work. Neil

I agree. I will remove the phrase "More improbable" with something that is more NPOV. Robotbeat 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK with that. You changed 1% to 0.5%; I think based on a misreading of the NAS text [1] which sez According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling William M. Connolley 11:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Actually, yeah. That quote that you just said is actually what I meant to say.Robotbeat 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and acted on the suggestion above to split this article into two articles.

See [Adaptation to global warming]

Of course, this being the WikiVerse, somebody (Alex) immediately made the new article a candidate for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptation to global warming

Please weigh in with your opinions on whether this new article should be kept or deleted.

Richard 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WMC, where would this link be best put on Wikipedia? G8 statement on climate change, July 9, 2005 in Current Events, perhaps? I only know enough to know that the location of the link in / on Wikipedia carries connotations which raise defensive postures in some editors. Ancheta Wis 22:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think its just about worthless (the statement, not the link!) http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/reading-runes-part-iii-g8-statement.html. It would probably belong in the proposed new politics of global warming, but that doesn't exist yet. Perhaps under Kyoto protocol? William M. Connolley 22:28:26, 2005-07-09 (UTC).

Given the age of the Kyoto negotiations, hasn't the 400ppm assumption been invalidated by the climate commitment studies published since the TAR, including that study published the year of the TAR? If the 400pm was without including climate commitment, then 400ppm will result in the 2C goal being significantly exceeded. Was the 2C from the low end or the high end of the predictions, i.e., how conservative is it, what are the error bars?--Silverback 11:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

What is the 400ppm assumption to which you refer? Who is assuming what? (SEWilco 15:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

preventing CO2 concentrations from exceeding 400ppm is assumed to keep the warming to 2C or less. Search on 400ppm in the article.--Silverback 15:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Since the commitment was known at the time of the TAR, this is an odd question. William M. Connolley 20:33:06, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

The size of the commitment wasn't known and the models didn't account for it, since papers were able to get published on that value later.--Silverback 20:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. William M. Connolley 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Carbon dioxide levels are at 380 ppm CO₂ (Stern Review, p195), and total greenhouse gas levels are at 430 ppm CO₂-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) (Stern Review, p193). Woood 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Something is either inevitable or it isn't. If it is only "effectively inevitable", that's saying that it is isn't inevitable at all but just "probable" or "likely". It is one of those phrases like "virtually certain" that actually means the opposite of what it purports to mean. --SpinyNorman 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I changed it to "inevitable". It was just weaselling, trying to counter the inevitable profossil argument that you can't say it's inevitable because we might invent some superduper coal that actually removes carbon from the atmosphere. But what it means to say is that 2C is going to happen no matter what, not that it might happen in some unlikely future. "Virtually certain" is an idiom, Spiny, clearly understood by English speakers. One says that a cricket team nine wickets down in their second innings, requiring 600 to win, on the morning of the fourth day is virtually certain to lose because unless something truly extraordinary happens, they will lose. But there's always the tiny possibility that God hates Hampshire enough to send a tornado. -- Grace Note.

William M. Connolley removed this graph from the "Encouraging technology and use changes" section because he believes that it implies incorrect information about the cause of the trend. I believe the graph has substantial merit, has a NPOV, is not original research, and does not imply anything about the relative proportion of the causes of the variation. I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the results back to the graph's primary comment thread. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. --James P. S. 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the comments back to Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. James P. S. 22:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

One expert nominated by Connolley has already called the extrapolation reasonable, not implying the cause of the variation, NPOV, and only technically borderline OR. Therefore, I'm replacing it here and on effects pending outcome at Climate Change Action and Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif. --James S. 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am replacing the graph because the person who pulled the graph from its original location at Global warming has been engaging in selective x-axis reversal. Please see User_talk:Dragons_flight/Images. --James S. 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That was no reason to add a questioned graph. Whatever you are implying by ...selective x-axis reversal. Also note I suffered a strange blanking error with the last edit, don't really know what happened there. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not suggest any reviewers. I said that if the graph had been published by a reputable blog, that would affect its status. Please be more careful how you report my words. William M. Connolley 22:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

You did indeed specifically suggest RealClimate, and you seconded the statement that the extrapolation is reasonable, doesn't imply anything about the cause, is NPOV, and only technically borderline OR. Exactly how are you insinuating that I misrepresented your position?

Replacing. —James S. 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. I didn't suggest getting anyone to review it. I said that if it had been used at a reputable blog... why am I saying the same thing I've just said above? Go on, read what I wrote. William M. Connolley 17:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

Thank you for explicitly seconding the fact that the extrapolation is reasonable. Do you believe that the 2nd revision's extrapolation is any less reasonable? If so, how so?

Thank you also for explicitly seconding the opinion that the graph does not imply anything about the causes, and that it has a NPOV, and that they are only borderline original. —James S. 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Be gone. This extrapolation is original research per Wikipedia def. The Realclimate expert may have stated technically borderline OR which from a science research perspective means such extrapolation and number play is only borderline science research - i.e. not acceptable scientific research. That is totally different from the Wiki policy and definition. Concensus is totally against using your number play and your continued pushing of it is getting quite irritating especially combined with your habit of twisting others words and making questionable accusations about other users (the engaging in selective x-axis reversal nonsense above). Vsmith 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no indication in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines supporting your claim that extrapolation including prediction confidence intervals counts as original research. There are several admonitions against impolite behavior, however. I am sorry you feel that what is considered unoriginal research in scientific publications is considered original research in your interpretation of Wikipedia rules. I disagree, because extrapolation merely represents how the underlying data is expected to change. I do not believe I have twisted anyone's words, and if I have inadvertently, I expect that they will correct my interpretation. I stand by my accusations about the selective reversal of the x time axis on the prominently displayed graphs of the person who originally objected to my initial revision graph. In any case, I have found more recent data and am drawing a new graph. —James S. 05:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I maintain that the version of the graph shown above is netiher original nor research. It was produced after review at Talk:Global warming and incorporated the suggestions of at least three other people. Therefore, it is not "original." Furthermore, it is merely the best fit to the cited IPCC 2001 date from 1950-1998 and the fit which most precisely predicted the actual 2005 data from EDS when it became available. The scientific community does not consider such extrapolation "origional" or "research" and I for one will not hold Wikipedia to a lower standard. Is there any evidence that those who do wish to hold Wikipedia to a lower standard are not doing so merely because they are uncomfortable with what the extrapolation portends?

I am replacing the graph here because I believe the financial information it conveys is directly pertinent to the topic of mitigation and especially in the "Encouraging technology and use changes" section. —James S. 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the edits of the person who suggested that solar energy might remove energy directly from the atmosphere; only to the extent that it reduces albedo. Clarified.

I have also removed the example about mining; electric mining equipment exists and is commonly used in mines where gas fire hazard presents a risk. Therefore, there is no reason that mining must create greenhouse gases. --James S. 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pending further discussion in talk, I have removed:

Wind power is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation, because it removes energy from the atmosphere. and Wind power is the only renewable form of energy which is a direct mitigation, drawing energy directly from the atmosphere. .

• First of all, it only needs to be said once. --Aude 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement is appropriate for both locations. —James S. 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Second, the word "only" sounds POV to me and I suggest something else less strong. It sounds like you're marketing wind power; I'd rather the article not sound like a commercial advertisement. --Aude 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Only" is factually true, unless you know of any other form of energy which extracts power directly from the atmosphere. That would be news to me. —James S. 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Third, please backup the statement with further explanation and sources. --Aude 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The wind turbine article, or it's talk page, has a discussion of the net power to build and install compared to the lifetime output. If you need sources because you are unable to confirm something, please just ask here first before reverting other people's work. Restoring. —James S. 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think the statement "Wind power is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation,..." sounds narrow (and tangentally related to the article). If readers want more detail on the various renewable energy sources, the pros and cons, they can go to that article. Despite all this, if the statement is still included here, it only needs to be said once. And, it does need sources here, if the statement is included. It doesn't matter if I can go out and search for sources to confirm something. I do see that wind power has many advantages. But in Wikipedia, you need to directly cite sources; You can't expect readers to know to find the discussion of "net power to build and install..." on the wind turbine article, when that article isn't linked with the statement and sources are not provided here. Thanks. --Aude 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tangentally? The article is about global warming mitigation. My POV is that the statement is pertinent to both sections. Perhaps we can make a deal: if you will remove all of the redundant qualifications in the climate change-related articles such as that global warming is a scientific theory, "not a proven fact," and that "there is still some controversy over whether scientists believe human activities cause climate change," and the dozens of similar statements, then I'll clip one of the two comments about wind power being the only direct form of global warming mitigation. —James S. 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement "For example, a wind turbine typically produces about 50 times as much energy over its lifetime as is consumed by its construction and installation." suffices and readers can go to renewable energy or wind turbine for more details. --Aude 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree and will change it to that. —James S. 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that wind power does no in any way mitigate greenhouse gases, rather it mitigates the greenhouse effect. it does not remove the gasses from the atmosphere, merely the energy. also, the amount of energy removed would probably be minute enough to be fairly insignificant. on the otherhand, I'm all for wind power propaganda, so I'll leave it up to others to edit this piece. --naught101 11:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree and think that the current phrasing is misleading (Wind power is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation, because it removes energy from the atmosphere.) The real benefit of wind power generation is that it replaces greenhouse-gas-emittig fossil fuel generation. The actual energy that is removed from the atmosphere is minute and does not cool down the Earth to counterbalence the GH effect. If you want I could come up with some numbers to back this up. --66.30.25.231 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The effect of windpower is to substitute for some CO2 producing generator. Of course it only works at about 25% capacity because wind isn't constant so it requires full back up from the aforesaid CO2 producers & it is impossible for it to get much above 10% of capacity without intermittancy problems making the whole grid unstable. And it is expensive. Nuclear is, on all counts, vastly better as a CO2 substitute if that is the point.

I don't think wind power is a mitigator of the greenhouse effect at all, not even minutely. Although it does take energy from the the wind and the atmosphere, who cares? The wind turns the turbine, and creates electricity. Then people use that electrical energy and it gets released back into the atmosphere, mostly as heat. For example, if you use wind power to heat your home, the heat will eventually leave your home and seep back into the atmosphere. The energy has to go somewhere. When we use an appliance, the energy used to power it has to be released in some way. Computers produce heat, lightbulbs produce light and heat, and speakers produce sound. But in the end, most to all is eventually released as heat. So how does it mitigate the greenhouse effect if we are turning wind energy into infrared energy?

I agree. Wind power 'avoids' greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps the page title 'mitigation' is restrictive? (Chrisnumbers2000 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

I was restructuring the text since some topics were treated more than once and I must have done something wrong. RoyBoy fixed it. Thanks! Richard 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from this article into a new article. Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which vilated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and provided references to sources. Hopefully, this will convince those who voted for deletion to change their minds.

Just in case it doesn't, would you take a look at the Adaptation to global warming article and then vote to keep or delete the article?

If the vote is to delete the article then I will bring much of that text back into this article which will make it longer and harder to read (which is why I created the new article in the first place).

Thanks.

Richard 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As I re-read the text in this section, I can't make sense of the last two paragraphs (I broke it into three paragraphs in an attempt to understand the flow of logic).

Paragraph 2:

The European Union has set a target of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C compared to preindustrial levels, of which 0.8 °C has already taken place and another 0.5 °C is already committed.

Comment: Well, OK, I understand that but I think this needs to be sourced. The information I have describes EU agreements in a different manner. Those agreements talk about use of renewable energy. See Renewable energy in the European Union for details. Perhaps there's another source for agreements about limiting global temperature rise?

Paragraph 3: The 2 °C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide concentration of 400 ppm by volume; the current level is 379 ppm by volume, and rising at 2 ppm annually. (The 2 °C rise would not happen immediately, but would likely happen in the future.)

Comment: Now wait a minute. This paragraph looks like a 'non sequitur'. The 2 °C rise is the target set by the EU. So wouldn't a better wording be something like "a 2 °C rise in global temperature would correspond to a CO2 concentration of 440ppm."?

Furthermore, if my math works out correctly, the world would have to stop generating CO2 in about 10 years (400-380)/2 to hold CO2 concentration at 440ppm. What the hell is the EU doing trying to manage global CO2 concentration? Doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the EU would try to control what it can control, namely its own emissions. (see comments on paragraph 2 above)

So, back to what I said at the beginning. I don't understand the logic of this section at all.

Caveat: Remember, I'm a believer in global warming and proactive response to it, both mitigation and adaptation. I'm just trying to clean things up here and this section is giving me conniptions.

Richard 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've revised it somewhat. The commitment stuff in the second para in unnecessary (and wrong). I found a plausible-looking source for both the 2 oC and the bit I added, that we won't hit it (or rather, we *will* hit it :-). I also vagued out 400 to 400-500; 450 is the number many people quote but it really should be left vague William M. Connolley 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh: the other thing I was going to say is: should this really be under "incerasing momentum"? I don't think its new (10y old?) and they are doing precious little to get to it... William M. Connolley 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it me or is this a stupid thing to have as a section. Most of the means of mitigation require some sort of technology. Wouldn't it be better to have 10.1 Transport and 10.2 Housing and urban design (which I just created) as part of 2 Energy efficiency and conservation and then have a whole section on Geoengineering which would include Carbon sequestration as a subsection. New contents would be:

1 Overview
2 Energy efficiency and conservation
   * 2.1 Transport
   * 2.2 Urban planning
3 Alternative energy sources
   * 3.1 Renewable energy
         o 3.1.1 Solar Power
               + 3.1.1.1 Advantages
               + 3.1.1.2 Disadvantages
         o 3.1.2 Wind power
         o 3.1.3 Biofuels
         o 3.1.4 Renewable Energy in the European Union
   * 3.2 Nuclear energy
   * 3.3 Decentralised generation
4 Carbon capture and storage
5 Geoengineering
   * 5.1 Carbon sequestration
         o 5.1.1 Seeding oceans with chalk
         o 5.1.2 Seeding oceans with iron
   * 5.2 Reforestation
   * 5.3 Screening out sunlight
6 Governmental and Intergovernmental Action
   * 6.1 Kyoto Protocol
   * 6.2 Encouraging use changes
         o 6.2.1 Carbon emissions trading
         o 6.2.2 Carbon tax
7 Non-governmental approaches
   * 7.1 Legal action
   * 7.2 Personal choices
8 Business Opportunities and Risks
9 Mitigation in developing countries
10 References
11 See also
12 External links

Any comments?--NHSavage 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. I've been struggling with the organization of this article for the last couple of months. The "Encouraging Technology" section is a left-over from the old organization which had two major sections "Encouraging Use Changes" and "Encouraging Technology". I re-organized it more or less as you see it now but hadn't figured out what to do with the stuff in "Encouraging Technology" yet. I like the idea of putting "Encouraging use changes" under "Governmental and Intergovernmental Action". That's not what the original authors had in mind for that title. They were using it to mean "energy conservation" but the way you are proposing to use it makes a lot of sense in the context of the current organization. Thanks for taking this to the next step.

--Richard 04:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done that but starting to wonder if the whole structure is wrong and would be better based on WGIII of TAR. Hmmm.--NHSavage 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire "Geoengineering" section is speculative and controversial. However, the following text is really bordering on the unencyclopedic in tone and lack of references. It is in desperate need of citations.

"The feasibility of mitigating global warming by putting sunlight-blocking material in the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption is controversial. Essentially all climate scientists agree with the NAS panel's estimate that a doubling of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content could be completely counteracted if we could put 4 million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere each year. It is disappointing that the NAS panel said that we don't have enough airplanes to do such a big job and would therefore have to shoot the sulfur up by naval guns, at a cost of roughly $1 trillion per year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the NAS verdict.

But climate scientist Mikhail Buydko said that the sulfur could be delivered at moderate cost by high-altitude airplanes (The Earth's Climate: Past and Future, Academic Press, New York 265-267, 1982).

Seventy modified Concorde airplanes with a 40-ton lift capability could do the job with an annual expenditure for airplane manufacture of $1 billion. Other expenses, such as paying for jet fuel, would run the annual bill up to no more than $10 billion."

--Richard 19:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now reverted this section. The article referred to is a personal web page. As such it is not a reliable source of information. Section 4.7 of the IPCC WGIII[2] report does mention these options but without including costs and hardly any detail. That report references the NAS report: NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 1992: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. The NAS report is online [3] aleit in a nasty format. I think this needs a lot more work before it can be included in this form at the very least to improve the tone and make it clearer what the source of the various figures are.--NHSavage 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 71.196.176.194, moved here from the article by Rd232: "The NAS report discussed in considerable detail the feasibility of mitigating global warming by putting sunlight-blocking material in the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption. Almost all climate scientists agree with the NAS estimate that a doubling of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content could be completely counteracted if we could put 4 million tons of sulfur in the stratosphere each year. It is disappointing that the NAS said that we don't have enough airplanes to do that big a job and would therefore have to shoot the sulfur up by naval guns, at a cost of roughly $1 trillion per year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed this conclusion. But the NAS statement that we don't have enough airplanes is nonsense. Seventy modified Concorde airplanes with a 40-ton lift capability could do the job with an annual expenditure for airplane manufacture of $1 billion. Other expenses, such as paying for jet fuel, would run the total annual bill up to no more than $10 billion. The most undesirable side effect would be a nontrivial but tolerable diminution of the ozone layer. Dissatisfaction with the Kyoto Protocol and recently reported evidence that global warming has already done significant damage may induce reconsideration of airplane delivery."

I just merged these 2 sections as they are the same author and topic. More later. --NHSavage 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some classification problems as the topic Carbon sequestration now redirects to Carbon dioxide sink. Carbon sequestration refers to a number of strategies for removing or preventing CO₂ from entering the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage is one approach; enhancing and preserving natural carbon sinks (such as biomass, soil, oceans, etc.) is another. I'm not sure how to fix this. Do we need a Carbon Sequestration page that briefly organizes topics like Carbon dioxide sink and Carbon capture and storage? Or can existing pages be fixed? In any case, some work needs to be done on Mitigation of global warming because it talks about "Carbon sequestration" but links to "Carbon dioxide sink". --B Carey 04:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

>Screening out sunlight ... creating a Saturn-like ring of small particles [28], or putting a very large mirror or wire mesh in space (perhaps at the L1 point between the Earth and the Sun)[29].

This should be cut from the article because it is pure sci-fi. Mankind is hundreds of years away at least from such technological might, if possible at all. Also, if you read Stanislaw Lem's novel "The Fiasco" you would know an orbiting ring is a very bad idea indeed. Only realistic solutions should be left in the article, like buying small cars instead of V8 monsters and replacing coal powerplants with atomic reactors. 195.70.32.136 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So, be bold! and do it.

--Richard 21:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently the geoengineering section talks about the dangers of unintended and unforeseen side-effects of geoengineering, though not as much as it should, IMO. But the whole article needs more on the dangers of trying to "control" climate change. It is entirely possible that such attempts to control, reduce or reverse any perceived climate changes could backfire and do more harm than good.

Consider the following scenarios:

• Man's activities can change the climate on a timescale of a few centuries (a fairly rapid response). Attempts to change things will have a similarly rapid effect, so if models and predictions are wrong, things can spiral out of control very quickly. Conclusion: it is best to identify and minimize climate changing activities, and to adopt a general policy of minimizing environmental effects of any kind, coupled with a policy of adapting to natural climate changes.

• Man's activities may have an effect, but at the present level of technology these changes will be outweighed by as yet unforeseen natural mechanisms and equilibriums. Conclusion: the effort of mitigation would be better spent in adapting to such changes, rather than futile efforts to control or reverse such changes.

Does anyone have a source for such general theorizing? Carcharoth 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to delete the "personal choices" section. Wikipedia does not give legal or other advice, and that section consists completely of such advice. This is an encyclopedia article, not a manual for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Polonium 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I will rewrite the section, making it much smaller and removing the advice list. Polonium 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is almost the first time I've even looked at Wikipedia, and don't much know what I'm doing, and I'm only an "amateur expert", so I'll stick to suggestions and questions about "Carbon capture and storage".

First, was there a way I could have done a search on Wikipedia to find it? I would have probably searched for "CO2 sequester". True "carbon capture", separating it from the oxygen, would be nonsense, requiring more energy that gained by burning the carbon.

Second, I didn't see any details of methods for separating and compressing the CO2. This might include a conventional piston compressor, with cooling, condensing the CO2 to separate it from the nitrogen. Or maybe it would use pure oxygen (produced efficiently by a space-age ceramic filter) instead of air, so nitrogen would already be eliminated, simplifying the condensing part. In either case I have some knowledge and ideas on possible improvements in efficiency for such. Where would I go to find out more and talk about such technology?

The first goal is to be sure we can capture and store more CO2 than that produced by the needs of the process. I'm guessing we're well passed that. Eventually we might hope to find ways to sequester it directly from the atmosphere. If we were able to get the atmospheric level back to, say, 1900 levels, we wouldn't have to worry about our technological breaking down due to peak oil and other factors, as seems imminent. On the other hand, if we don't collapse, we could use such technology to maintain constant control of average global temperatures.

Third, it's becoming more apparent that underground CO2 storage results in a "chemical soup", no doubt due to high pressure in combination with water forming a very strong carbonic acid, which would dissolve at least carbonate and probably other rock, eventually allowing CO2 to leak to the surface.

I don't think storing it as carbonates is an option, because there are very few metal oxides that will combine with CO2 that haven't already done so, as carbonates. Calcium carbonate for instance would have to be broken down, releasing CO2, so it could be reabsorbed, a losing proposition.

I'm not familiar with the means for storing CO2 in deep oceans. I've been favoring giant tanks on the surface, but having them in deep oceans would reduce the strength needed, though with more difficult access. It would also be another factor to raise the sea level. Has anyone calculated the volume needed?

Dan Robinson, danrob@efn.org

Moved from article for comment. Vsmith 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See the September issue of Scientific American. The entire issue is devoted to climate solutions by leading energy experts. There are major discussions of efficiency here, both for electricity and vehicles. See also this new blog on Climate change. -- Ssilvers 04:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the following text: "*Solar cells reduce the albedo^{[citation needed]} of the parts of the Earth they cover, thus creating warming themselves, similar to the effect of roofs, roadways, parking lots, and strip mines." I don't know if someone put this here as a joke, but the effects of solar panels on global warming is negligible.

Seems like a good idea. However, to discuss this slightly - even if they fill the Sahara with these devices, the energy trapped by the solar panels shouldn't increase heating any more than the other means of warming things in order to create power, such as coal burning or nuclear reactors? Narssarssuaq 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article needs more discussion on non-energy related greenhouse gas emissions, especially including agriculture and land use change. Perhaps a new section on this topic should be introduced. 18% of greenhouse gas emissions are associated with land use and 14% are associated with agriculture. [4]

The statement in the sonction on 'the energy landscape' that

Energy availability and pricing are volatile and dependent on changing political and economic factors. While energy shifts can be quick and capricious, land development patterns can be difficult and expensive to alter.

has no citation and is probably inaccurate. For example, the most significant climate change mitigation that has occurred in Australia has been an over 50% emission reduction in land use change emissions due to a reduction in land clearing. On page 217 of the Stern Review it is estimated that decreasing deforestation in the 8 countries responsible for 70% of land use emissions could be done at the relatively low cost of $1-5/t CO₂-e.

Woood 05:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This paper on how changing to a vegan diet can prevent more greenhouse gases than changing your car to a prius could be a start: —Pengo 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutri.html

There should be an overview of how much energy can be produced through different energy sources. For example, I have read that renewables, excepting solar power, are unable to produce anywhere near enough power to meet the world's energy needs. I don't have any citation for this, though. Something about this should be added, as it's a "rather" vital point. Narssarssuaq 08:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You people don't have a clue do you? have you read the wikipedia arcticle on overpopulation? Or do you think power companies produce electricity independently of consumers? Guess I'll have to help here synergy is pretty complex.
Lee Wells 12:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but it doesn't add anything to the topic I brought up. Narssarssuaq 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial point. "Proving" that something is technically impossible is always risky... it was done of aeroplanes, and later of supersonic flight. That's one of the problems. Another is separating out what people would like to do from what they would like other people to do and what they are themselves able and willing to do. But I'm fascinated that you exclude solar power from the sources unable to produce a significant amount of power. We've been hearing about solar as the reason we don't need nukes since the 1970s at least. In those decades, billions of dollars have been spent on solar power research, and much progress made... but not to the point that worldwide production can replace even one nuke unit. The political support is still there, to the point that if you could show how to do it, you'd make Bill Gates look like a small-town grocer. But nobody has. Andrewa 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Urban Planning section I've removed the text "In cold climates where air conditioning accounts for only a small proportion of energy consumption, the opposite of this approach may be preferable: An increase in average city temperatures by painting roofs black decreases demand for heating fuel." because in fact painting roofs black would increase the temperature of cities and provide entirely unregulated heat to buildings. Users might resort to air-conditioners, even in the high arctic where summer temperatures are often well above 10°, but have recently exceeded 20°. White roofs help keep cities and houses cool, but black paint on a water tank is an excellent way to pre-heat domestic hot water. --Jrsnbarn 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this section should be moved to the Politics of global warming article. Any seconders to this motion? --Jrsnbarn 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that I was skimming through this article, and as soon as I read the Heading "U.S. government attempts to mislead the public" - I was done with this article.

Please look at what the government has done to mislead people about the so called war in the middle east and tell me that there are no attempts to mislead the public for financial or political reasons. In light of these *facts* your statement is a complete non-sequitur.

I really wish people would stick to voicing thier political views in a better forum. Vandalizing a Wikipedia artical is just childish, and is one of the main reasons Wikipedia isn't held in the same esteem as other online encyclopedias. If jerks like Jammin4 would stop thier grade-school pranks, the Wikipedia could very well become an example to all reference websites. omega9380 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Some scientists have suggested using aerosols to stave off the effects of global warming as an emergency measure. Russian expert Mikhail Budyko understood this relationship very early on. In 1974, he suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze.^[1][2][3]

There is a lot of material on this idea. (yes real Journal articles and not conspiracy stuff about Chemtrails) Essentially, the articles talk about spraying the upper atmosphere with sulphates or other particulates. However, I don't think it's main home should be in Global dimming or Global warming.Kgrr 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this as a new section. Narssarssuaq 08:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Mitigation of global warming. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1