Talk:Mitigation of global warming/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nuclear Power 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specific oragnisations 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. I will remove the phrase "More improbable" with something that is more NPOV. Robotbeat 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK with that. You changed 1% to 0.5%; I think based on a misreading of the NAS text  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)
replies: text: Actually, yeah. That quote that you just said is actually what I meant to say.Robotbeat 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitigation/adaption 

message: 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)
thread_title: New article: Adaptation to global warming

message: 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)
thread_title: "Effectively inevitable"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of content was a mistake, not vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request review of [[Adaptation to global warming]] article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Please review "Increasing Momentum to Mitigate Global Warming" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 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  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)
replies: text: I just merged these 2 sections as they are the same author and topic. More later. --NHSavage 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review Geoengineering section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NAS and sulfur delivery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken topic title "carbon sequestration" redirects to carbon dioxide sinks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More needed on possible dangers of mitigation 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment moved from article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles in new issue of Scientific American 

message: I deleted the following text:
"*Solar cells reduce the albedo 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)
thread_title:  Deleted Text 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black roofs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  U.S. government attempts at suppression 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandilization 

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: I added this as a new section. Narssarssuaq 08:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Albedo enhancement using [[Global dimming]]