Global Warming: 2014 warmest year on record!

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

The problem with Aerosols is that while you may spray them and block the sunlight somewhat and that would temporarily reduce the temperature locally... the aerosols themselves will be heated and then they will keep the temperature up.
I.e. you won't have 43C in midday and 28 at night, but 40C at midday and 31 at night. That kind of stuff.

The amount of Aerosol needed to block the sunlight over something like say 1/10th of USA is astronomical. And you have to carry it over to the stratosphere and disperse it.


And then of course, we shouldn't forget that conspiracy freaks, that include certain countries' ministers are sure that the aerosols sprayed on the troposphere are actually a conspiracy. Whether it is to alter weather patterns to induce hunger or weaken the immune system or something else, depends on the conspiracy freak. Let's not feed them.

I'm just going to say that if you think of a plan based on what a guy you think is nuts will think then you are going to have a bad time

[Caligula's_Horse]

The problem with Aerosols is that while you may spray them and block the sunlight somewhat and that would temporarily reduce the temperature locally... the aerosols themselves will be heated and then they will keep the temperature up.
I.e. you won't have 43C in midday and 28 at night, but 40C at midday and 31 at night. That kind of stuff.

The amount of Aerosol needed to block the sunlight over something like say 1/10th of USA is astronomical. And you have to carry it over to the stratosphere and disperse it.

And then of course, we shouldn't forget that conspiracy freaks, that include certain countries' ministers are sure that the aerosols sprayed on the troposphere are actually a conspiracy. Whether it is to alter weather patterns to induce hunger or weaken the immune system or something else, depends on the conspiracy freak. Let's not feed them.

That's actually not much of a concern. The cooling aerosols work more like mirrors then heat sinks, reflecting solar radiation back into space rather then absorbing it. As for the conspiracy nut jobs, they're an obstacle to be overcome, much like shortage of finance or technical difficulties. Hardly insurmountable, just more obnoxious then most difficulties.
The way reflecting radiation works, you don't even need all that much of the stuff to get a cooling or warming effect (an aerosol specifically chosen for the job will be much more potent then CO2), and dispersal across the stratosphere is so simple even a developing nation can pull it off.

The real problems with climate engineering, are the political issues Sphere mentioned (as stuff sprayed in the stratosphere doesn't stay where you put it, but rather disperses all over the globe, probably not uniformly), as well as the fact that global weather patterns aren't very well modeled. With our current understanding of the climate, trying to engineer it is something akin to a doctor that hasn't been able to fully diagnose an illness, but wants to operate anyway. We can easily do a lot more harm then good even without competing operations working in parallel, meaning that unless our understanding of climate is drastically improved in upcoming years, engineering attempts will be more acts of desperation then an ideal solution.

There's also the option of scrubbing the CO2 directly out of the atmosphere, though I'm not at all sure its practical, given the sheer scale of the atmosphere and the finance and effort involved. Stratospheric aerosols might have unpredictable results and be compromised by competing national interests, but at least they're cheap.

[alhoon]

Well, it's true that it could do more harm than good with the Aerosols with our current understanding of weather patterns.
However, slightly coarser aerosols that would drop to the ground within 3-4 days could solve that problem, wouldn't they? I mean the problem of grander-than-planned area of coverage.
Another problem I see is that since the magnetic poles are actually at the poles... the inevitable concentration of aerosols there would block sunlight needed by the flora in the tundra and the subarctic regions.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Well, it's true that it could do more harm than good with the Aerosols with our current understanding of weather patterns.
However, slightly coarser aerosols that would drop to the ground within 3-4 days could solve that problem, wouldn't they? I mean the problem of grander-than-planned area of coverage.
Another problem I see is that since the magnetic poles are actually at the poles... the inevitable concentration of aerosols there would block sunlight needed by the flora in the tundra and the subarctic regions.

Aerosols that only stay up after a short time (probably through breaking up in the atmosphere rather then physically falling) would be too cost prohibitive to be of any real use, other then maybe research into modeling weather patterns. So useful as a prototype, but not a practical product.
The magnetic poles are actually no trouble, so long as your aerosols don't react with magnetic fields. In fact, most materials would fit the bill.

The greatest problem seems to be the political side of things. Lack of international cooperation and competing interests are what got us into this mess in the first place, after all. On the technological side of things, the scientific understanding of the climate is constantly improving; the political arrangements required to pull it off without ending up with parallel programs screwing with each other, on the other hand, is as poor as its always been, and will likely remain that way.

[alhoon]

You probably have thought/read about this more than I did. I don't agree 100% with what you say, but it was very informative discussion. +rep.

[Stario]

CO2 does not drive the climate. What? We're approaching 400ppm? (last time I checked).
This is nothing, try 4000ppm during the Ordovician Silurian- and guess what even at these high CO2 levels there was glaciation.

This is evidence:
1. CO2 does not drive the climate;
2. CO2 is quite capable of rising without human interventions even as high as 4000ppm (but who cares as even at those levels there was no runaway greenhouse induced global warming, instead the opposite happened, we got glaciation).

This climate change talk is no more that business between individuals with their own personal agendas.
If I can get more power for my buck out of that Nuclear powerplant as opposed to those windmills, guess what I am opting for.

[Odenat]

If I can get more power for my buck out of that Nuclear powerplant as opposed to those windmills, guess what I am opting for.

Nuclear powerplants have a tendency to explode. Nuclear wastes are a big issue too. Anybody heard about a windmill exploding and affecting millions of people? Nope, that's why we must invest to solar and wind energy even if they are more expensive.

History showed us that if invested enough, prices for new technologies will fall sooner or later.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Nuclear powerplants have a tendency to explode. Nuclear wastes are a big issue too. Anybody heard about a windmill exploding and affecting millions of people? Nope, that's why we must invest to solar and wind energy even if they are more expensive.

History showed us that if invested enough, prices for new technologies will fall sooner or later.

Funny thing about that, solar power actually kills more people then nuclear.

There have only been three real nuclear disasters since the technology was adopted--three mile island (single digit death toll), Fukushima (single digit death toll) and Chernobyl (triple digit death toll). All three of these plants had major design flaws, especially Chernobyl, that wouldn't be present in any new plant built today. And even with the design flaws, nuclear plants don't explode so much as leak, which while not much fun, isn't exactly apocalyptic--only 3% of background radiation is of human origin, and that includes nuclear tests that release a great deal more fallout then your average leaking reactor (and again the vast majority of reactors don't leak).

So all in all, the number of people who die in industrial accidents making solar panels is much higher then in the nuclear industry. Turns out the Arsenic they use in the panels is more dangerous then working in a nuclear reactor.

Now, nuclear has its problems, mostly a high initial cost and being political dynamite, but at least it delivers, unlike solar and wind which can only supplement the fossil fuel power grid rather then replacing it. Having mother nature control the on/off switch might appeal to one's inner hippy, but industrially and economically speaking, its a major drawback.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nuclear powerplants have a tendency to explode. Nuclear wastes are a big issue too. Anybody heard about a windmill exploding and affecting millions of people? Nope, that's why we must invest to solar and wind energy even if they are more expensive.

History showed us that if invested enough, prices for new technologies will fall sooner or later.

How many out of hundreds of nuclear power plants all around the world exploded so far? Nuclear energy is by far one of the, if not the most, safest energy sources out there. France figured it out. Rest of the world can too. Nuclear energy is the most efficient option with the least footprint for us to power our world and to be able to reach the stars.

[justicar5]

A much simpler way to get the same net result is to deposit sulfides into the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratos...engineering%29

CO2 and other similar substances cause a greenhouse effect because they are transparent in the visible spectrum (which accounts for much of the solar spectrum) but opaque to a huge swath of the infrared spectrum (which accounts for essentially the entire spectrum being reflected off of the Earth). I.e. CO2 lets sunlight through, but traps earth-light. Glass in a greenhouse does the same thing, hence the term.

Certain sulfides on the other hand would increase the opaqueness of the atmosphere to sunlight. What makes this practical is that even relatively small amounts of sulfides in the atmosphere would block a great deal of sunlight. So it would not take a very large/expensive program to have a substantial effect. This is in contrast to trying to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. There is currently no practical way of doing it on a large enough scale to have any meaningful effect.

The politics involved in a sulfide deposition program, however, are very tricky. It is intentional climate control. There would be winners and losers involved depending on what sort of global temperature was aimed for.

and massive acid rain, don't forget the massive acid rain, if you get unlucky.

[Squiggle]

If its not any warmer than average, dont worry, its still happening. If it is warmer than normal, woosh! Look, we told you so! Global warming if real, is insignificant. We will naturally lower our pollutions with economic development, and the richest areas will most easily withstand climate change already. We can just continue on as normal, and we will deal with the problem gradually, inspite of the modern day secular apocalypse preachers, who like to think the oceans will soon swallow us whole, and the sun cake our bones.

[sumskilz]

If its not any warmer than average, dont worry, its still happening. If it is warmer than normal, woosh! Look, we told you so! Global warming if real, is insignificant. We will naturally lower our pollutions with economic development, and the richest areas will most easily withstand climate change already. We can just continue on as normal, and we will deal with the problem gradually, inspite of the modern day secular apocalypse preachers, who like to think the oceans will soon swallow us whole, and the sun cake our bones.

Easy for you to say sitting there comfortably in Canada a tenth of a degree warmer than last year.

[The spartan]

If its not any warmer than average, dont worry, its still happening. If it is warmer than normal, woosh! Look, we told you so! Global warming if real, is insignificant. We will naturally lower our pollutions with economic development, and the richest areas will most easily withstand climate change already. We can just continue on as normal, and we will deal with the problem gradually, inspite of the modern day secular apocalypse preachers, who like to think the oceans will soon swallow us whole, and the sun cake our bones.

And you know any of this because...you are pulling it out of your ass? Also, a big LOL to referring to PHD carrying scientists as "secular apocalypse preachers".

[Odenat]

Funny thing about that, solar power actually kills more people then nuclear.

There have only been three real nuclear disasters since the technology was adopted--three mile island (single digit death toll), Fukushima (single digit death toll) and Chernobyl (triple digit death toll). All three of these plants had major design flaws, especially Chernobyl, that wouldn't be present in any new plant built today. And even with the design flaws, nuclear plants don't explode so much as leak, which while not much fun, isn't exactly apocalyptic--only 3% of background radiation is of human origin, and that includes nuclear tests that release a great deal more fallout then your average leaking reactor (and again the vast majority of reactors don't leak).

So all in all, the number of people who die in industrial accidents making solar panels is much higher then in the nuclear industry. Turns out the Arsenic they use in the panels is more dangerous then working in a nuclear reactor.

Now, nuclear has its problems, mostly a high initial cost and being political dynamite, but at least it delivers, unlike solar and wind which can only supplement the fossil fuel power grid rather then replacing it. Having mother nature control the on/off switch might appeal to one's inner hippy, but industrially and economically speaking, its a major drawback.

Really, you are comparing the number of people died during nuclear disasters to the number of people died during the making of solar panels? How can i defend my point against such a flawless logic, lol. You know, bears are killing more people than nuclear disasters every year, so this also shows how safe nuclear plants are. Meanwhile 156.000 people lost their homes due to Fukushima, radiation levels all over Japan (and the earth of course) are increased.

How many out of hundreds of nuclear power plants all around the world exploded so far? Nuclear energy is by far one of the, if not the most, safest energy sources out there. France figured it out. Rest of the world can too. Nuclear energy is the most efficient option with the least footprint for us to power our world and to be able to reach the stars.

Actually, till today there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants. 57 of them occurred since Chernobyl so these are not old evenements.

Whatever you say, nuclear plants will always be risky, they are potential threats, terrorists can target nuclear plants, they can be bombed during wars etc. etc. Also, the wastes are a continuous problem too. And don't forget, even if nuclear energy is 100% safe (which it isn't), we have limited supply of uranium.

Renewable energy can and will replace oil and coal energy, it's only a matter of time. According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world's electricity within 50 years. Combine it with wind and geotermal energy and our future seems to be safe if we focus our resources to the correct energy sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...conomic_trends
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/...l-gas-and-oil/

[alhoon]

How many out of hundreds of nuclear power plants all around the world exploded so far? Nuclear energy is by far one of the, if not the most, safest energy sources out there. France figured it out. Rest of the world can too. Nuclear energy is the most efficient option with the least footprint for us to power our world and to be able to reach the stars.

That.

Yes, if your reactor melts \ flood hits it, you have an environmental disaster of epic proportions. But that's rarer than a blue moon.
On the contrary, solar panels and windmills have environmental impact (noise, disrupting bird flight, large area requirement to be exfoliated) that while insignificant compared to a nuclear disaster, it's always there.
You can easily go 50 years without a nuclear disaster in your 1500Mwatt plant. Now, do you know how much land you have to cover with solar panels to get 1500Mwatt? How many hilltops to cover with windmills?

You have a desert like they have in USA? Good for you! Go for solar. All the power to you.
You don't? well, go for nuclear.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Really, you are comparing the number of people died during nuclear disasters to the number of people died during the making of solar panels? How can i defend my point against such a flawless logic, lol. You know, bears are killing more people than nuclear disasters every year, so this also shows how safe nuclear plants are. Meanwhile 156.000 people lost their homes due to Fukushima, radiation levels all over Japan (and the earth of course) are increased.

Actually, till today there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants. 57 of them occurred since Chernobyl so these are not old evenements.

Whatever you say, nuclear plants will always be risky, they are potential threats, terrorists can target nuclear plants, they can be bombed during wars etc. etc. Also, the wastes are a continuous problem too. And don't forget, even if nuclear energy is 100% safe (which it isn't), we have limited supply of uranium.

Renewable energy can and will replace oil and coal energy, it's only a matter of time. According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world's electricity within 50 years. Combine it with wind and geotermal energy and our future seems to be safe if we focus our resources to the correct energy sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...conomic_trends
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/...l-gas-and-oil/

Uranium is abundant enough to last for centuries yet even through growing consumption (as are coal and gas, by the way, but not oil, which is estimated in decades). Newer designs running on Thorium rather then Uranium have an even more abundant fuel source, and as an added benefit would be useless in a weapon's program (no such thing as a Thorium bomb).
Waste also isn't much of a problem. You just find a mine shaft that's no longer in use (there's really no shortage), dump half a century's worth of waste there, and seal it up when you're done.

Most of nuclear's bad reputation is a result of cold war era politics, which saw rushed designs and construction projects approved, because beating the Soviets/Americans to it was deemed more important then such trivialities as long term sustainability or public safety. New reactors built today wouldn't have to be rushed like that--in fact, all the ones they're building nowadays are designed so that you couldn't cause a meltdown if you tried (and engineers have tried, to demonstrate).

Renewables might come around to replacing coal and gas in 50 years, but in the meantime, we're all still breathing in coal smoke. Coal is currently the fastest growing sector in the energy market, because nuclear's politically difficult, and renewables simply aren't up for it economically. Solar and wind might be up to the challenge with a couple of decade's worth of further technological improvement; nuclear, with the proper political will, can replace coal and gas using nothing but existing technology.

[alhoon]

Waste also isn't much of a problem. You just find a mine shaft that's no longer in use (there's really no shortage), dump half a century's worth of waste there, and seal it up when you're done.

Vast oversimplification. I've stood in classes where we dealt with such problems. The mineshaft should have nearly 0% (as in 0.001% not 2%) chance to be flooded. For a several thousand years. Including ice ages.
USA are not stupid that they already dig deep in the desert to dump their waste.

[PointOfViewGun]

Actually, till today there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants. 57 of them occurred since Chernobyl so these are not old evenements.

Whatever you say, nuclear plants will always be risky, they are potential threats, terrorists can target nuclear plants, they can be bombed during wars etc. etc. Also, the wastes are a continuous problem too. And don't forget, even if nuclear energy is 100% safe (which it isn't), we have limited supply of uranium.

Renewable energy can and will replace oil and coal energy, it's only a matter of time. According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world's electricity within 50 years. Combine it with wind and geotermal energy and our future seems to be safe if we focus our resources to the correct energy sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...conomic_trends
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/...l-gas-and-oil/

How many of those accidents caused death? Very very few. Accidents are defined as those causing death or over $50,000 in damages. Most fall on the second part. Solar panels and wind turbines do cause deaths as well. More than nuclear reactors in fact. People fall from rooftops and turbines. Everything is always risky, however, new reactor designs make that risk quite small. There is no merit to the terror or war arguments either. Wars are rarely due to an intent to destroy. Most, if not all, aggressors want the land and its resources. Nuclear power plants are not popular targets. Moreover, if you can't defend your nuclear power plants from terrorism then you have other problems. Terrorists could easily target ammunition and fuel storage points and cause more deaths than attacking a nuclear power plant. We shouldn't have bridges? Airports? Schools? Hospitals? Just because you think they make easy targets... Uranium is a common metal. We have a lot of it but need very little of it. We have at least enough for the next step, fusion reactors. There are even nuclear reactor designs today that experiment with only needing fuel in the startup and requiring only fissile material to keep it running. A lot of these designs also use used fuel. French are good at it and they can reduce the waste by a great amount.

Nuclear energy is a renewable energy source. So, yes, renewable energy will replace oil and coal. Neither solar nor wind, however, will be the runner up. You certainly can't reach the stars in a timely fashion with solar and wind.

[Odenat]

How many of those accidents caused death? Very very few. Accidents are defined as those causing death or over $50,000 in damages. Most fall on the second part. Solar panels and wind turbines do cause deaths as well. More than nuclear reactors in fact. People fall from rooftops and turbines. Everything is always risky, however, new reactor designs make that risk quite small. There is no merit to the terror or war arguments either. Wars are rarely due to an intent to destroy. Most, if not all, aggressors want the land and its resources. Nuclear power plants are not popular targets. Moreover, if you can't defend your nuclear power plants from terrorism then you have other problems. Terrorists could easily target ammunition and fuel storage points and cause more deaths than attacking a nuclear power plant. We shouldn't have bridges? Airports? Schools? Hospitals? Just because you think they make easy targets... Uranium is a common metal. We have a lot of it but need very little of it. We have at least enough for the next step, fusion reactors. There are even nuclear reactor designs today that experiment with only needing fuel in the startup and requiring only fissile material to keep it running. A lot of these designs also use used fuel. French are good at it and they can reduce the waste by a great amount.

Nuclear energy is a renewable energy source. So, yes, renewable energy will replace oil and coal. Neither solar nor wind, however, will be the runner up. You certainly can't reach the stars in a timely fashion with solar and wind.

Uranium is not a common metal. The world's present measured resources of uranium (5.9 Mt) in the cost category around 1.5 times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. Altough this value is more than most minerals, all the estimated resources (today's 5.9 Mt plus estimated 7.3 to 8.4 million tonnes) will give us 200 years supply at today's rate of consumption.

Of course, when and if we start to replace all oil and coal plants with nuclear plants, those reserves will deplete much much quicker (at most we have 50 years). Altough it's practically possible to get Uranium from sea water, it's not sure if we'll be able to built this technology.

Thorium can be used as a replacement for Uranium, yes, but the technology is not here yet and we still do not have any thorium reactor. Therefore, my feeling is that instead of wasting our resources on nuclear energy, we can easily make solar and wind energy more efficient. If we can, we'll continue nuclear power as support to those energies.

Ah, on the subject of reaching stars, it'll take 1000's of years even tough you use nuclear energy to reach closest star. We don't and probably never have enough speed. We need to use a gate technology (just like at Mass Effect) and those gates can easily be powered by solar energy

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...ly-of-Uranium/

[PointOfViewGun]

Uranium is not a common metal. The world's present measured resources of uranium (5.9 Mt) in the cost category around 1.5 times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. Altough this value is more than most minerals, all the estimated resources (today's 5.9 Mt plus estimated 7.3 to 8.4 million tonnes) will give us 200 years supply at today's rate of consumption.

Of course, when and if we start to replace all oil and coal plants with nuclear plants, those reserves will deplete much much quicker (at most we have 50 years). Altough it's practically possible to get Uranium from sea water, it's not sure if we'll be able to built this technology.

Thorium can be used as a replacement for Uranium, yes, but the technology is not here yet and we still do not have any thorium reactor. Therefore, my feeling is that instead of wasting our resources on nuclear energy, we can easily make solar and wind energy more efficient. If we can, we'll continue nuclear power as support to those energies.

Ah, on the subject of reaching stars, it'll take 1000's of years even tough you use nuclear energy to reach closest star. We don't and probably never have enough speed. We need to use a gate technology (just like at Mass Effect) and those gates can easily be powered by solar energy

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...ly-of-Uranium/

From your source:

Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater.

Current usage is about 66,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.9 Mt) in the cost category around 1.5 times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources (U as main product or major by-product) are considered – another 7.3 to 8.4 million tonnes (beyond the 5.9 Mt known economic resources), which takes us past 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption. This still ignores the technological factor mentioned below. It also omits unconventional resources (U recoverable as minor by-product) such as phosphate/ phosphorite deposits (up to 22 Mt U), black shales (schists – 5.2 Mt U) and lignite (0.7 Mt U), and even seawater (up to 4000 Mt), which would be uneconomic to extract in the foreseeable future, although Japanese trials using a polymer braid have suggested costs a bit over $600/kgU.

It is clear from this Figure that known uranium resources have increased almost threefold since 1975, in line with expenditure on uranium exploration. (The decrease in the decade 1983-93 is due to some countries tightening their criteria for reporting. If this were carried back two decades, the lines would fit even more closely. The change from 2007 to 2009 is due to reclassifying resources into higher-cost categories.) Increased exploration expenditure in the future is likely to result in a corresponding increase in known resources, even as inflation increases costs of recovery and hence tends to decrease the figures in each cost category.

Reducing the tails assay in enrichment reduces the amount of natural uranium required for a given amount of fuel. Reprocessing of used fuel from conventional light water reactors also utilises present resources more efficiently, by a factor of about 1.3 overall.

There are no high efficient solar panels either but you seem to be putting your faith blindly on them. You seem to be employing entirely selective argumentation, assuming that solar power research will make leaps soon and nuclear energy will stay the same.

Solar power can power satellites or stationary space stations with no major electricity consumption. It can not power spaceships.