So we've pretty much hit the point where we cannot stop a positive feedback loop from occurring and the Earth is going...

So we've pretty much hit the point where we cannot stop a positive feedback loop from occurring and the Earth is going to continue to heat up, which will release more CO2 and Methane, which will heat it up more, which will cause more methane release, etc.

So what are our options now to stop runaway global warming and stabilize the climate of the planet? Is some kind of solar shade possible? How much light could we realistically block out with satellites?

Other urls found in this thread:

climate.nasa.gov/news/556/particles-in-upper-atmosphere-slow-down-global-warming/
youtube.com/watch?v=LT-rixDQM9A
youtube.com/watch?v=H6ImP-gJvas&
livescience.com/55038-method-turns-carbon-dioxide-into-solid.html
youtube.com/watch?v=SBjFjSZjv6w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You familiar with the idea of carbon fixing? If we can build a massive enough system of apparatuses that somehow turn CO2 into a solid organic molecule without the extra stuff needed in plant-based carbon fixation we could drastically reduce atmospheric CO2.

I am but it seems a bit far fetched to pin our hopes on organisms sucking carbon out of the atmosphere when we're in the middle of a great extinction event. The algae that use the carbon are dying out, not propagating, huge problem if your strategy to lower CO2 levels hinges on them.

Methane release is the biggest problem I think. But to solve the increased CO2 levels which are causing methane sinks to release methane we need a way to artificially fix CO2 into a organic form on a mass scale.

Genetically engineer some kind of extremely fast growing ocean algae that will drag atmospheric carbon to the bottom of the ocean as marine snow

What happens when the marine snow is decomposed by deep sea bacteria? Now I know very feed aerobes live that deep but surely the few that do would release a good portion of this back into the ocean water as CO2 where it will eventually enter the atmosphere right?

If a runaway warming was possible on Earth it would've occurred already.

Yeah probably, but if you are dumping carbonsignificantly faster than it can be decomposed it doesnt really matter

The normal rate of climate change is very slow. Changes of 1 degree usually happen over hundreds of thousands of years. There hasn't been an event like this for Earth, ever. Change like we're seeing within 100 years is absolutely unprecedented.

So? we are talking about physics and chemistry here, the time scale is the second, 100 years or 100 millions is the same, it will be in equilibrium way before that.

Actually we're talking about biology and it's inability to adapt to rapid changes in the environment. Whenever there is a rapid shift in the climate of the planet thousands of species go extinct, and we're talking time scales of 100,000 years or more. What do you think is going to happen when we revert to the climate that existed 100 million years ago within the next 500 years? The ecosystem is delicate. Even the species that can adapt in so short a time are going to find that the things they feed on are dying out and die out themselves, complete ecosystem collapse.

This thread is too real for me

Pumping huge quantities of aerosols into the upper atmosphere to try and reflect the worst of the Sun would probably be our trump card. It would be a dangerous move to play, as the Earth is a complex system and we've no real way of testing it beforehand and working out what the potential side effects are until we do it, but if it's that or boil to death, I can see us giving it a go.

>tfw Operation Dark Storm will be real
Seeding the atmosphere with chemicals sounds like a really fucking bad idea, as far as plans with unintended and unforeseeable consequences go.

But if it has never happened before, maybe the result will be super awesome.

Do you have any legitimate sources for this claim, or are you just a stupid fuck that repeats everything that it hears on the tabloid news?

Clathrate gun has gone off, havent you heard?

Go back to /pol/ retard

Go back to the 'ddit bitchfag.

I'll just list some things I've heard:
-release some powder/particles to cause the formation of clouds which reflect sunligh
-release some sulphuric stuff, don't really know. I think it is similar to volcanic eruption emissions.
-dump iron in the ocean to fertilize the growth of algae blooms for more photosynthesis

Just let the ice age happen.

From watching talks by leading experts, I'm pretty sure they think it's too late and we're fucked (although they never say it directly)

so, assuming that's the case, our only hope is a new breakthrough discovery/technology to remove large amounts of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere
perhaps combined with as many effective geoengineering techniques as needed to artificially cool the planet while the greenhouse gas is reduced

Swarm of reflective satellites at the L1 point to reduce the amount of incoming light.

We can't stop it, but plants will stop it for us. Even if we are not here to see that happen.

We'd need to plant a trillion-tree GMO eucalyptus forest around the world and harvest-replant it every 7 years and store the logs in the mariana trench just to break even with our current CO2 production.

That does not include CO2 rising from newly thawed tundra/arctic regions. We'd need to stop all CO2 emissions from civilization to have a chance.

Make them solar panels and beam the energy down to use as electric to help replace CO2 emitting power plants.

>at least 1500 gigatons of methane stored in arctic permafrost which is now starting to thaw and leak
>the only way to stop it is to cool the planet (unlikely), or to go out there and capture it
>if anyone builds rigs to capture it, it will be energy companies
>they will then ship it to plants and turn it into electricity, releasing huge amounts of co2
we're fux'd yo

Release sulfur dioxide into stratosphere.
climate.nasa.gov/news/556/particles-in-upper-atmosphere-slow-down-global-warming/

Uh. Wouldn't that cause acid rain?

What about the acid rain plus the extra ocean acidification it will cause.

>It's another "Chicken Little opines on global warming" thread
Oh boy.

I'm all for educating people about the issue of global warming, but this sort of alarmist sensationalism is not constructive. Positive feedback mechanisms do exist, and do have a significant impact on the climate, but we are nowhere near a point where these positive feedback mechanisms will even come CLOSE to outweighing the overriding negative feedback mechanism of radiative balance.

So just
CALM
THE
FUCK
DOWN
(and promote renewable energy).

Don't forget gen.IV nuclear senpai

What have Climatism and Lysenkoism in common? The state-sponsored consensus.

Oh yeah, I meant to mention the Methane problem too.

Too bad there isn't some global government that has the ability to kick anyone's ass in order to get everyone in line for shit like this (disregarding any problems such a government would create).

Anyone know what form of government a normal family is? Like father, mother, and children? Because all of us are like children in this instance and there's no parent to kick out asses and keep us in line. Freedom kind of fucking sucks when you only ever use it to totally kill off your entire species.

That would help a tiny bit depending on the size, but wouldn't fix the long term problem. It would help give us some time at the expense of crops. You'd need to have a volcano-sized explosion once a year.

Mount Tambora, which blew its top in April 1815 cooled the globe for a year, only a year "The Year without Summer". Having something like that happen once every year or once every 2 years would probably not cause too much problem with acidification for long term. Short term it would cause world famine. Which isn't a bad thing really. Less people = less CO2.

>Short term it would cause world famine. Which isn't a bad thing really.
Nice one edgelord.

Being truthful isn't being an edgelord. If humanity can't get its shit together on its own then it will start to die out on a massive scale until extinction occurs. The alternative, with humanity still not getting its shit together, is culling of the population.

Level of severity, worst at the top:

Extinction
Culling
Getting our shit together

I'd prefer we'd get our shit together. I don't give a damn about quality of life if it means no life at all as the result of living in luxury.

people will keep saying this well after the point where it's too late
they'll keep saying it after bangladesh is underwater due to sea level rise and its 100 million inhabitants flee to other countries

they'll keep saying it after india and pakistan, which share their source of fresh water, begin to run low and enter into nuclear war to gain/retain control over it

they'll keep saying it when the average temperature in russia, australia, and mexico raise a fraction of a degree and can no longer feed their own populations resulting in mass exodus, famine, war, and global destabilization

basically, fuck conservatives

Well liberals insist on pushing niggers, faggots and trannies into everything so I can understand why people vote conservative even when they deny climate change. Basically get a party that acknowledges climate change and pledges to kick niggers out and you'd have a vote winning platform.

>positive feedback loop
On a water planet one such event leads to an ice age and the other to the interglacial. Both are self-stabilizing.

Why does the y axis go from -40 to 120 when it would only take a few years above 60 or below 50 to make the Earth uninhabitable for humans?

because an increase of 2 degrees avg temperature leads to near extinction of humans
and if you zoom out far enough, that 1 degree increase looks barely noticeable
which is what they are going for

yeah except that's bullshit and you would know it if you didn't have your tongue up the leftist media's ass

Just out of curiosity, are there any other issues where you disagree with 97% of scientists? Or is it just on the issue of global warming?

9 out of 10 dentists think Colgate™ toothpaste is the best toothpaste.

you agree with this?

personally, i ask why they could only find ten dentists to talk about their shitty toothpaste.

ah, u wuz juss joken'
aight den

Is that a peer reviewed study that has been repeated and resulted in the same conclusion? Show it to me please

Bioeremediation best remediation.

A, C, and D are our best options. The major problem is the excessive CO2 produced. This would have to be offset somehow, but the methane shitstorm will happen eventually.

this board is about math and science, not mysticism or political ideology. please leave after deleting your thread.

/pol/ is fleeing to other boards because their board is becoming unviewable.

anthropogenic climate change is a very real phenomenon that has been objectively measured.

youtube.com/watch?v=LT-rixDQM9A

oh wow you sure convinced me, wow it's like carbon dioxide just stays in the atmosphere forever! we are all going to suffocate tomorrow!!!

Everyone on Veeky Forums who denies climate change is happening is just a troll, right?
The only real deniers are dumb old people

Find a dentistry publication that actually finds this 97% of the time in non corporate payed studies across thousands of publications.


You're comparing a fucking ad to the body of climat science.

>>>GETOUT

>dumb old people
nice meem, shithead

>non corporate payed studies
yeah because george soros, the gore's, the clintons, and the entire new left across the western world would never fund something and pressure scientists (who were indoctrinated in leftist universities since the 60s) to publish copy that fits their narrative

why /pol/
why do you come here
why
you aren't going to redpill us
just stop it

...

corporations fund studies here and there because it costs them a million bux but they profit a billion bux from the results
why would government officials spend enough money to buy 97% of climate scientists?

ok, to be fair, it's not only dumb old people
some of them are rich old people

climate scientists are a small fraction of scientists. climate scientists are not even a field.

ask a geologist, a chemist, a physicist about the first principles of this stuff. i personally know an analytic chemist who is unconvinced by the climate change argument on the grounds that it is based on false pretences, such as the fact that carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere long enough to produce any sort of "green house" effect. it simply reacts with nitrogen and other molecules and is recycled in the ongoing reaction that is earth's atmosphere.

Go see the /pol/ catalog right now, it's being raided by psychos and freaks. /pol/ is barely viewable anymore.

>carbon dioxide can remain

cannot*

another sowell pill for little johny feels-a-lot

top zoz

what does the black science man of economics have to do with climate change

>ask a geologist, a chemist, a physicist
OK, here you go
look at that, they all agree

More than you know. More than you know...

nah, the heads of those organisations agree. put another way, one person from each of those organisations, who undemocratically represents all of the people working at those places said they agree.

that is not the same as all scientists.

Clearly the (((APS))), (((ACS))) and (((GSA))) are all working for the Jews to promote the AGW lie and create a global government that's going to tax good hardworking whites for carbon use and implement forced miscegnation. It couldn't be that most scientists actually think it is a real thing. Daddy told me the Chinese made it all up!

who is your daddy? CNN? Bill Clinton?

black man poster further reinforces my belief that the only climate change deniers on Veeky Forums are trolls

They aren't all trolls, /pol/ is just extremely fucking stupid and bases their beliefs on tribal affiliation rather than broad scientific consensus, and if a scientific consensus exists that goes against their beliefs then it must be the Jews' fault

how very interesting and important. never forget, you are bautiful, and have very important things to say. remember, buy more, and hurry up! don't forget, america made them do it!


i am smart because i am posting on a place called math and sicenced

that is means we are smarter

i watchted this to get smart
youtube.com/watch?v=H6ImP-gJvas&

love me some uncle tom's
that's some ben carson level retardation
america was like the last first world country to outlaw slavery

>1 million men in blue died to free the slaves, many more left disfigured for life, and it means nothing to you

Fun fact: The eight largest ships on Earth emit the same amount of CO2 as every car on Earth in a year, but no one asks about limiting their emissions.

ITT The sky is falling!

>implying America was a first world country before the world wars

See Current scientific consensus is shifting away from methane positive feedback being a plausible problem

Turn it into stone.
livescience.com/55038-method-turns-carbon-dioxide-into-solid.html

>i personally know an analytic chemist who is unconvinced by the climate change argument on the grounds that it is based on false pretences, such as the fact that carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere long enough to produce any sort of "green house" effect. it simply reacts with nitrogen and other molecules and is recycled in the ongoing reaction that is earth's atmosphere.

Your friend is not a very smart analytical chemist then. Let's start with composition of earth's atmosphere. It's 78% nitrogen, 19% oxygen, 0.9% argon and the rest is trace gas.

1. First from Chem 101 he should learn that Nitrogen gas, N2 is triple bonded and practically inert in the atmosphere, because for a reaction to happen you need to be beyond activation energy. The only possible way to break the triple bond is through lightning & very specific type of plants, and through Haber's process (anthropogenic, making fertilizer). Therefore the claim that CO2 can react away with nitrogen gas in the atmosphere is totally not true. Anyone who take basic chemistry would know this.

2. 18% of atmosphere is oxygen. Very little amount of hydrogen gas exist. This means that the atmosphere is HIGHLY OXIDIZING environment. What is the most oxidized (contain most O's and less H's) form of gaseous carbon? Yes it's CO2. CO2 cannot be oxidized further, and thus dpn't react with oxygen. Again the claim that CO2 would be scrubbed away via reaction with oxygen gas is false. One could make a claim that reduced gas, such as Methane (CH4) and CO would get oxidized in the atmosphere into CO2, and that would be correct

There are 2 known sinks of CO2 in the atmosphere, photysynthesis from plants, and CO2 getting dissolved into the ocean through Henry's law because the atmosphere is oversaturated with CO2 compared to the surface ocean.

TLDR; your analytical chemist friend is a goddamn moron. 2/10 failing grade, see me after class

Actually the positive feedback doesn't mainly come from more carbon dioxide/methane.
But because those gases have heated the atmosphere there will be more water vapor which will then in turn act as a greenhouse gas.

I'm not familar with the idea but intuitively I'd say that due to entropy it should be a lot easier to not release the carbon dioxide in the first place.

How does it feel to be a refugee /pol/? Look at your board now, it's ablaze and burning with ponies.

Climate change would do the same, sub saharan africa and the middle east would be inhospitable, creating flood of refugees into Western Europe. The pacific islanders nation would get submerged, and they'll be refugee to Australia and New Zealand.

I hope you enjoy your stay here in Veeky Forums as refugee, but prepare to get SCIENCE'd. Any argument that disagree on basic principles of how physics and chemistry work, scientific data & observation, and not backed by peer reviewed study will get ridiculed

It's another dear diary, /pol/ is BTFO once again thread.

/pol/tards when will they ever learn

>The normal rate of climate change is very slow. Changes of 1 degree usually happen over hundreds of thousands of years. There hasn't been an event like this for Earth, ever.

That's a completely unscientific statement with zero evidence behind it. Ice cores do not have annual resolution for measurements beyond 68,000 years. There is no way of knowing how fast or slow current change is relative to what has happened over the past 4.5 billion years.

Will probably go about as well as the iron dust dump into the Pacific ocean by that Canadian retard. A massive algae bloom that released a deadly neurotoxin and genocided some significant marine life.

Please save us from your lack of foresight.

>From watching talks by leading experts, I'm pretty sure they think it's too late and we're fucked (although they never say it directly)

No, what they say is we're always x years away from death. Then, x years pass and we're suddenly x more years away from death.

Every. Single. Time.

Genetically engineer world trees and plop them on the four corners of the Earth.

>they'll keep saying it when the average temperature in russia, australia, and mexico raise a fraction of a degree and can no longer feed their own populations resulting in mass exodus, famine, war, and global destabilization

Crop yields go up with temperature increase, you literal know-nothing retard. That's exactly what has happened. Satellite measurements show a greening planet and crop yields have gone up.

Basically, fuck ignorant people.

>Ice cores do not have annual resolution for measurements beyond 68,000 years.

You're a moron aren't you. What is dT/d_age

Let's say at 110,000 years, we know that there's 0.5 degree C change over 10 years. The ice core doesn't need annual resolution of 0.05 degree C per year to be able to see 0.5C change over 10 years

Never because they're fucking stupid

>In response to my post on the draft APS statement, on April 8 I received an email from a group of APS members requesting that I create a thread on Climate Etc. where APS members could post their comments publicly, so that they could be discussed and so that it would be more difficult for the APS to ignore these comments.

>Roger Cohen
>What a craven and scientifically misguided statement this is. It wreaks of slogans, exaggeration, and distortions.

>David Douglass
>The APS should let the prior 2007 statement expire — i.e. let it die.

>William Happer
>History will not look kindly on APS for its 2007 Climate Change Statement, with its supposedly “incontrovertible” science.

>Robert Knox
>POPA and APS have joined those who promulgate the model predictions of dangerously rising temperatures as if they were settled science. It is a shameful situation that is amplified by the calamity-hungry popular press.

>Hugh Kendrick
>This statement is pathetically unworthy of a high school physics project much less of an organisation of physicists whose hallmark ought to be quantitative analysis, not an ignorant ideological polemic like this that tramples the scientific method.

>Franco Battaglia
>I’m sorry to say that the above statement would challenge the authority that the APS has so far gained on science issues. I would NOT approve the statement as it is.

>Laurence Gould
>I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH (AND ANGRY ABOUT) THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE APS CLIMATE STATEMENT.


>they all agree
>OOPS

>hurr durr I draw a line through an unknown gap between 2 points and just pretend that's the actual trend

Believe that, if you want to.

>climate scientists are a small fraction of scientists
Physicists are a small fraction of scientists. Ask a geologists, a chemist, a biologist about the first principles of this stuff.

but not fast enough

>So we've pretty much hit the point where we cannot stop a positive feedback loop from occurring and the Earth is going to continue to heat up, which will release more CO2 and Methane, which will heat it up more, which will cause more methane release, etc.
No we haven't: youtube.com/watch?v=SBjFjSZjv6w

>carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere long enough to produce any sort of "green house" effect
It doesn't need to remain long in the atmosphere to cause a greenhouse effect. Absorption and re-emission of infrared light happens in fractions of a second. So long as it is there (and that can and has been measured), it causes a greenhouse effect.
Along with what said, your friend is a moron.

>edge lord
>muh one world government

Typical bs about having a few edgy ideas and not thinking any of them through

>crops will no longer grow if temperatures rise by a fraction of a degree

ok

They are already spraying stuff in the air all day long every day. What more do you want?

What do you think they are spraying up there all day long? That and a ton of other shit.

That's incorrect. Totalitarianism works most of the time. Just ask any good parent.