You’re talking about things that a civilization considerably more advanced than ours should strongly consider. But we don’t even know how to heat the planet without nasty externalities. Right now human civilization is in the “don’t fuck it up” stage. You don’t go messing with the climate until you know what you’re doing or you have to take the chance just to survive.
No. The important thing is to get away from the cliff edge that represents reglaciation. That is the catastrophe which we most urgently need to avoid. Staying near to the edge of the “reglaciation” cliff is a really bad option for humanity and the rest of the planet. That way, potentially billions may die in a reglaciation catastrophe. Safety considerations are one of the main reasons for wanting to further warm the planet up.
We should not hang around on the edge of the “reglaciation” cliff, waiting for technology to develop. Nor should we engage in ridiculous schemes intended to cool the planet down. We should just walk away from the cliff—and probably go as quickly as conveniently possible before the ground crumbles beneath our feet. The longer we dilly-dally around, the bigger our chances of going over the edge.
This does not seem very complicated to me. Reglaciation looms as a clear and present danger. We must do our very best to go in the opposite direction. We can debate how fast we can safely run, how far away is a safe distance, etc—but run we absoultely must.
The Milankovic forcing is small. Even in the unforced case we would probably miss the next trigger and have 50 Ka of peace and quiet. Now we’re well past the threshhold. Find something else to worry about, please, like ocean acidification, coastal flooding, rapid regional climate shifts, and ecosystem disruption for instance.
If it becomes an imminent threat, reglaciation may be easier to avert than warming. Right now, we know more about how to heat the planet than how to cool it off.
Reglaciation is an imminent threat—and we don’t know if we would be able to stop it.
A lot of the misguided research on mitigating global warming has investigated how to cool the planet down. I know of no research effort on a similar scale devoted to heating the planet up. So, I am not clear about where the idea that we know more about how to heat the planet than we do about how to cool it is coming from.
Hopefully in due course we will have fusion and mirrors in space on our side as well.
I don’t think anyone knows if a concerted effort could prevent reglaciation, though. If anyone wants to make the case that we should downplay the risk of reglaciation because we could avert it, I would say: prove it. This looks potentially extremely dangerous to the planet to me: show me that it is not.
Until we are much more confident in our climate control abilities, I think a safe distance is prudent. IMO, that involves at least melting Greenland.
You make a valid point, but you neglect to mention that the same temperature/pressure regimes that generate ice crystals also make metals (especially scrap metal alloys) very brittle and prone to cracking, not to mention long-term effects on malleability.
You have a point there. If you want to build something out of metal and not have it break—and there are lots of important things that can be made out of metal—a cold environment makes it harder.
You’re talking about things that a civilization considerably more advanced than ours should strongly consider. But we don’t even know how to heat the planet without nasty externalities. Right now human civilization is in the “don’t fuck it up” stage. You don’t go messing with the climate until you know what you’re doing or you have to take the chance just to survive.
No. The important thing is to get away from the cliff edge that represents reglaciation. That is the catastrophe which we most urgently need to avoid. Staying near to the edge of the “reglaciation” cliff is a really bad option for humanity and the rest of the planet. That way, potentially billions may die in a reglaciation catastrophe. Safety considerations are one of the main reasons for wanting to further warm the planet up.
We should not hang around on the edge of the “reglaciation” cliff, waiting for technology to develop. Nor should we engage in ridiculous schemes intended to cool the planet down. We should just walk away from the cliff—and probably go as quickly as conveniently possible before the ground crumbles beneath our feet. The longer we dilly-dally around, the bigger our chances of going over the edge.
This does not seem very complicated to me. Reglaciation looms as a clear and present danger. We must do our very best to go in the opposite direction. We can debate how fast we can safely run, how far away is a safe distance, etc—but run we absoultely must.
The Milankovic forcing is small. Even in the unforced case we would probably miss the next trigger and have 50 Ka of peace and quiet. Now we’re well past the threshhold. Find something else to worry about, please, like ocean acidification, coastal flooding, rapid regional climate shifts, and ecosystem disruption for instance.
You are assuming that Milankovitch cycles are the cause of the problem?
That is debated—due to things like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem
...and the list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Problems
See also some of the alternative hypotheses:
“Sun’s fickle heart may leave us cold”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325884.500-suns-fickle-heart-may-leave-us-cold.html
...and...
“A New Theory of Glacial Cycles”
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/glacialmain.htm
Unreferenced claims that “we are well past the threshold” don’t count as particularly useful evidence.
I recommend you back up such material if you want to continue this discussion.
If it becomes an imminent threat, reglaciation may be easier to avert than warming. Right now, we know more about how to heat the planet than how to cool it off.
Reglaciation is an imminent threat—and we don’t know if we would be able to stop it.
A lot of the misguided research on mitigating global warming has investigated how to cool the planet down. I know of no research effort on a similar scale devoted to heating the planet up. So, I am not clear about where the idea that we know more about how to heat the planet than we do about how to cool it is coming from.
Well, it’s fairly well-known that putting a lot of greenhouse gases will warm up the planet. ;)
Sure—and there’s also black carbon:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1938379,00.html
...and planting trees in the north:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tropical-forests-cool-earth
Hopefully in due course we will have fusion and mirrors in space on our side as well.
I don’t think anyone knows if a concerted effort could prevent reglaciation, though. If anyone wants to make the case that we should downplay the risk of reglaciation because we could avert it, I would say: prove it. This looks potentially extremely dangerous to the planet to me: show me that it is not.
Until we are much more confident in our climate control abilities, I think a safe distance is prudent. IMO, that involves at least melting Greenland.
The planet? The planet is used to glaciers. It’s the humans who may not like them.
I mostly mean the planet’s lifeforms. Few living things like ice crystals. They typically rupture cell walls—causing rapid death.
You make a valid point, but you neglect to mention that the same temperature/pressure regimes that generate ice crystals also make metals (especially scrap metal alloys) very brittle and prone to cracking, not to mention long-term effects on malleability.
Kind of a big thing to leave off!
You have a point there. If you want to build something out of metal and not have it break—and there are lots of important things that can be made out of metal—a cold environment makes it harder.