How would we go about *reversing* global warming, realistically?

Question

I've been wondering this for a while. I can't find anything on the internet concerned with reversing the damage we've done, only slowing it.

I believe that we're too late to stop devastating global warming. Rising carbon emissions on top of a growing population, widespread deforestation and possibly carbon-sink reversal (which pretty much spells the end, as far as I can see) means that soon the whole house of cards will collapse.

So, given that everything we have done (not much) and everything we're likely to do (not enough) to prevent catastprophy, I believe that civilisation as we know it will fall.

So, in the future, faced with living on an ever more inhospitable planet, is there anything the survivors could realistically do to reverse global warming?

You could remove carbon by encouraging reafforestation, storing it in oil (you can make lots of oils), geo-engineering or maybe something I havn't thought of.

What are the realistic solutions?

Answer 1

If everyone takes two breaths for every three they take now, this would offset human CO2 by 33%.

Answer 2

I think there is, gasp, a self correcting mechanism that will help, even without political/scientific action. It doesn't get mentioned much, but here goes.

The kind of energy use we saw in the last century was based on technology of the last century. For a fact we've put a lot of stuff in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution got under way. However, technology does actually get refined. A lot of devices, machines, manufacturing procedures, have gotten refined, and actually use less energy to run and put out less harmful pollution. Consider the tv. It once took huge amounts of power to get an image on a screen. There are screens we can carry around in our pockets now... a solution to that problem that involves paring down the energy use and pollution.

Look around your house... devices that used to suck up lots of juice have quietly been replaced by smaller, more efficient ones... This will even happen with cars.

I don't think, with the population growing we can reverse the trend, but I think there's an amazing amount of advantage to be gained by going through our technology and infrastructure with a fine toothed comb and making sure the devices and procedures we're using are the most efficient.

I know, this doesn't satisfy those with an impending sense of catastrophe... what kind of panacea can you offer in that regrad? Imagine futuristic jungles of artificial trees pumping out O2... or huge machines that ionize gunk out of the air. But those kinds of solution are themselves failures of vision.

The answer to this problem is not a giant ukase or a wonder machine. It's solved with consciousness, in increments.

I hope I'm not losing you with this. It's not a put down to the 'there's no problem crowd' or an appeaser of the 'we've got to do something' crowd.

It's just a thought about the problem that might prove constructive because it is not divisive.

I will accept your write in ballots.

_____

hate the practical approach, eh?

Answer 3

Actually, there is an almost immediate change in temperature when you ground jet aircraft, as seen when almost all aircraft were grounded in the U.S. after the tragic events of 9-11, (Travis, 2002).

The temperature quickly reverted back to basically pre-1950 records in 3 days; 1 degree Centigrade diurnally.

The problem is that there are plans to triple flights by about 2015, and continue to massively increase until 2050, due mainly to the 2008 economic globalization treaties.

This could have disastrous consequences in our lifetime.

For more information: http://areco.org/studies.htm

Answer 4

Currently we rely on 19th century technology (fossil fuels) for most of our energy. They are the root of the problem. But we have a wide range of more advanced technologies--solar, wind, nuclear, etc. plus the capacity to build practical storage systems for solar power and practical electric vehicles.

Ifwe actually start implementing these on a large scale, and get rid of the obsolete systems we now use, the carbon emissions wil drop drastically. It will take time--several decades--fror CO2 already in the atmosphere to clear ot--but it will.

Answer 5

There's an affordable and practical plan to reduce it, developed by hundreds of scientists and economists working together. It focuses on reducing fossil fuel use, a good idea in any event.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Reversing it is not practical in the forseeable future.

Answer 6

Carbon sequestration is the only realistic possibility.

Fortunately, there are a number of ideas out there that might work. What we need is more research to try them and see which is the most practical, the fastest, and the most economical.

Answer 7

There are no "realistic" solutions to an undefined, unrealistic, politically motivated problem like GW. Let science identify the problems ...not "concensus."

Also, GW is not neccessarily a "bad" thing.

Answer 8

find ways to set off volcanoes; drop nuclear bombs; spray aerosol cans