Global Warming Canards: What Can We Do About It?

This blog is a continuation of my response to comments to my first post on Global Warming Canards

mai asks:

I began my first post by saying that I am not a climatologist so this is not my expertise. I am even less of a policy-maker. The science is clear that global warming is happening, that CO₂ is a major factor, and that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations is due to human activity. What the effect of that will be requires speculation.

Anything I say about what we should do is simply my opinion and I make no claims to any authority behind it. As I learn more I will almost certainly change my mind in the future. With that caveat for general readers, I do not want to do what I have seen others do ... avoid taking a stand on tough questions. I will answer the question to the best of my ability at the moment.

The best case scenario is that I am wrong in my beliefs and that all that will happen is that places like New York will have weather like Savannah, Georgia does now. But we have no reason to suspect that its effect will so limited. It is just wishful thinking. We are talking about GLOBAL climate change, and I think that will most likely have far-reaching effects. Some effects will be subtle, such as perhaps increasing the strength of future hurricanes; some will be dramatic, such as perhaps causing an ice-free Arctic Ocean at some point in the future. Most effects that will occur from global warming are probably unforeseen at the moment.

I am NOT optimistic about humans preventing global warming. I think we are well beyond the optimal time to change our habits and prevent the potentially devastating consequences of global warming. Furthermore, since it is GLOBAL climate change, to effectively combat it requires GLOBAL co-operation. I am 57 years old, and I haven't seen that in my entire life, and try though I might I don't see it now. There are emerging economies that would be stifled by taking the actions needed. Energy drives the economies of developed nations too. The steps needed to curtail global warming will almost certainly hurt that. And our economy does not look in too good shape as is. I do not think humanity has the will power to take the short-term pain for the long-term good.

The United States is no longer the leading carbon emitter. China is. And with China's emerging economy and its demand for cheap energy along with an unresponsive communist government I think the problem is going to get worse. China recently announced plans plans to boost its coal output by 30%. I suspect that alone will be enough to scuttle anything we can do by means of cutting back our carbon emissions.

Does that mean I think we are doomed? I wouldn't go that far in that direction either. I think our best hope lies in the development of new technologies. Carbon sequestration, in which carbon is actively taken out of the air, I believe provides us with the best chance of coming out of this OK. However, I have yet to see the details of a particular carbon sequestration plan that I would endorse. One plan that I keep hearing about involves seeding the oceans with iron. Iron is a limiting nutrient in the growth of cyanobacterial blooms, and certain phytoplanktons. Seeding the ocean with iron could cause these organisms to flourish and as they multiply and divide they would take carbon out of the air. However, we would be dumping iron -- a potential pollutant -- into pristine ocean. The side-effects may outweigh the benefit.

Another of the passive plans (plans that do not involve any effort on the part of the average guy) to deal with global warming that suffers from the same problem is intentionally putting sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. Sulfurous aerosols increase the earth's albedo (its reflectivity). Doing that means that much of the incoming energy to the earth can be reflected back into outer space. If we do this right we can counteract the increased energy we are getting from greenhouse gases and offset global warming. But what will be the side effects of putting all that sulfurous compounds into the atmosphere? I don't think it will be good.

Right now I am hopeful that we will come up with better ideas that will not involve such potential catastrophes. The attraction of the carbon sequestration technologies is that they work even the average person does nothing. That does not mean I would discourage alternative energies and conservation efforts. Anything that can be done to cut back will certainly be a bonus even with the best carbon sequestration technologies possible.

I think that we also need to devote significant research efforts into seeing what we can do to maintain species diversity in the light of impending unavoidable global warming. Extinction is forever. Factors not directly associated with global warming .. habitat destruction, introduced species, etc. ... are already causing extinctions at a frightening pace. Global warming will add to that. In past mass extinction events the species diversity did not recover for 10,000,000 years or more.

One thing that global warming deniers are already doing to downplay the dangers of global warming is suggesting that global warming might actually be good for us. ksullivan in a response to mai's original post said:

There will be some winners from global warming. The environment will change that will open up niches for species that are able to take advantage of them. But most species are already highly adapted to the environment they are in already. Thus, there will be more losers than winners. As for relatively warmer atmospheres ... there will be enhanced desertification. One report predicts that in North America by 2050 (by which time some of you will still be alive) wheat growing regions will shift as so:

If this is true then with respect to bread Canada will be a winner and the United States will be a loser.