[katieHaylor (OP)]

Alex says:

What are the possible scientific solutions to prevent global warming? And do you consider this as the biggest current problem of humanity?

What do you think?

[chiralSPO]

Alex says:

What are the possible scientific solutions to prevent global warming?

A substantial decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would limit the extent of the warming. This is likely the most important part of any plan to reduce the impact of global warming. However, even if we stopped emission completely tomorrow, the average temperature would still continue to increase for several decades.

Some people are looking into ways to capture CO₂, and store it or convert it into something. But this is very challenging: CO₂ is very dilute in the atmosphere, even if it passes 500 ppm, that's still just 0.05%, so you would have to filter 1 million tons of air to remove 500 tons of CO₂ (a large coal plant can produce this much in an hour). It is easier to capture the CO₂ at the plant itself, where the concentrations are much higher, so it is more efficient (and can even be driven by waste heat). This is the idea behind "clean coal." But it is even more efficient not to burn it in the first place.

Some people are studying whether an aerosol dispersed high up in the atmosphere could be used to control the temperature by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet. This is a known effect, and has been observed as a result of massive volcano eruptions, but because the atmosphere is so complex, and there would be major repercussions from overshooting (the "winter" of "nuclear winter," without the "nuclear").

And do you consider this as the biggest current problem of humanity?

Hard to say if it's the biggest problem, but it is certainly one of a small handful of existential crises, and is essentially one of only two such scenarios we have much control over (the other being global thermonuclear war). We also face threats like major meteorite impacts and super-volcanos, which could change the global ecosystem much more dramatically than we are now, but there's not too much we can do about those yet, other than perhaps predict them...

[alancalverd]

Probably not.

It has been a lot hotter and a lot colder in the geological past, and AFAIK nobody who considers current trends to be anthropogenic has a consistent explanation of past behaviour. You can't solve a problem until you understand it.

Any variation in climate will be a disaster for some and a benefit for others, depending on which edge of the habitable zone you inhabit. . Mitigation of the disaster is a political, not a scientific matter.

[jeffreyH]

If you understand the role of water you also understand how complex the issue is.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html

[yor_on]

Yes it's the worst problem we ever faced. It's insidious, slow in human terms, goes against our ideas of what life is about, making a career, making money  'getting ahead', making as many babies we want, which many also associate to some divine will for us 'populating the earth'. It also goes against our ideas of our selves as being the 'crown of evolution' and the ones predestined to use the earths fauna, flora, as well as other resources for our own self interests.

Which all shows that we're no different from any other animals probably :)
But we think we are, and that's also why we can't change course. The idea of 'geo engineering' is typical for the way we think we should handle the problem. Science should know better than that, but we're all 'human'.

[smart]

Some people are studying whether an aerosol dispersed high up in the atmosphere could be used to control the temperature by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet. This is a known effect, and has been observed as a result of massive volcano eruptions, but because the atmosphere is so complex, and there would be major repercussions from overshooting (the "winter" of "nuclear winter," without the "nuclear").

Don't forget the implications for human health (and the environment) of releasing massive amounts of aerosols in the troposphere. Solar geoengineering is a scientific failure since it does not measure the impacts of chronic aerosol exposure on living organisms including humans. The current "solutions" for fighting climate change with geoengineering cannot stop superhurricanes formation nor mitigate polar ozone depletion. See: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20054838?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[yor_on]

There exist some simple solutions.

Stop making babies. One per person is quite enough.
Stop thinking that a 'good life' equalize profit
Stop killing of fauna and flora'
Stop using so much pesticides and fertilizers
Stop making mega 'meat factories',  they're like concentration camps for animals. Who the f* feels good eating such?

There are a thousand ways more to make a difference 'scientifically', but it depends on you, and what you think life is about.

[yor_on]

I better add that Global warming, although a priority, just is one of the problems we have, to it you can add ocean acidification, dead spots without food fish constantly growing, us killing species leading to extinction, even destroying our top soil for growing food. We're no 'crown of existence', more like a pestilence for the rest of the world.

But we can change, so there's still some hope for us.

[smart]

We're no 'crown of existence', more like a pestilence for the rest of the world.

But we can change, so there's still some hope for us.

So, according to you, we need to depopulate to fix climate change?

[yor_on]

If you by that mean stop making as many babies that we like?
Sure

If you by it mean killing of others, 'unworthys', whatever that might mean

No

[terryj1517]

If you talking about climate change, then there really isn't much we can do about it. The climate changes in cycles and we are just now witnessing this current event. The climate has been changing for the last 12,000 years.

Now if you are suggesting that increasing CO2 levels are the cause I'd suggest that water vapor is the main cause of atmospheric warming. The question becomes, does CO2 increase temperature or does the increase in temperature cause an increase in CO2? I ask this because temperature increase comes mainly from sun activity and the increase in solar winds. An increase like this will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere and therefore more heating and an increase in CO2 levels. This is a natural event, so can we stop this or slow it down, I think not.

[kazbert]

The climate has been changing for the last 12,000 years.

Is it not more accurate to say that the climate has been changing for the entire length of the earth's 4.5 billion years of existence?  Climate has never been static. 

That said, our species is very prone to unintended consequences from our best intentions.  We can influence our climate, but we cannot bend it to our will.  All species affect their ecosystem, for good or bad, and either survive the changes or go extinct.  Unlike all the other species, our intelligence allows us to be (or refuse to be) conscientious of our actions.  However, we can only act within the limits of our knowledge.  The greatest threat to our species is wanton hostility towards each other.  We simply adapt to whatever else comes our way. 

[Chondrally]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53181.msg451841;topicseen#msg451841

[jeffreyH]

The greenhouse gas bulletin shows an increase in CO2 from 400ppm to 403ppm between 2015-2016. This coincides with an el Nino event. This is a recurrence of the situation in 1997. The driver can't be simply CO2 for reasons Alan Calverd has stated elsewhere. A saturation point in water vapour coincided with the 1997-1998 el Nino event. It would be interesting to see what the water vapour is doing now.
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/library/wmo-greenhouse-gas-bulletin

[jeffreyH]

So we think we know how water vapour behaves.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2236

[mrsmith2211]

Science itself cannot do a thing. The application of science can, so for your example of global warming, yes science could do much, but only if used, when even the concept of global warming is disputed and relegated as nonsense or a chinese hoax, how then could you expect science to solve a problem that is seen as nonexistent. and have leaders act on it?

[adianadiadi]

The best method to contain global warming is to grow trees, use bicycles, purchase only necessary items, avoid non veg diet, switch off electricals and electronics whenever not in use.

[alancalverd]

Electricity accounts for less than a third of our energy consumption, so switching off standby gizmos doesn't make a lot of difference. If you are worried about carbon emissions, stop breathing: 15% of anthropogenic CO2 is human exhalation, and 25% is the exhalate of farm animals, none of which need to exist. Interestingly, a horse standing still produces as much greenhouse gas as a small car covering 8000 miles per year.

[Bored chemist]

Electricity accounts for less than a third of our energy consumption, so switching off standby gizmos doesn't make a lot of difference. If you are worried about carbon emissions, stop breathing: 15% of anthropogenic CO2 is human exhalation, and 25% is the exhalate of farm animals, none of which need to exist. Interestingly, a horse standing still produces as much greenhouse gas as a small car covering 8000 miles per year.

You need to get to grips with the carbon cycle.
The CO2 you exhale was already CO2 in the  air when it was "borrowed" by a plant, turned into your food eaten and re-released.
The carbon emitted by  your car has been buried in the ground for millions of years.
So, as you are aware, but are ignoring in a manner that looks dishonest, only one of them actually increases the CO2 in the air above pre-industrial levels.

[alancalverd]

All depends where you draw the "pre-industrial" line, or indeed why you chose it at all. During the carboniferous period, all those trees must have been sucking it in from somewhere!

If we didn't eat plants or farm animals, the plants that feed us and them would sequester atmospheric CO2 just as they always have done.

If there's any dishonesty about the subject, it is the failure of the warmist lobby to admit that anthropogenic means exactly what it says.