Here's the story:

Sir Branson, What A Guy!

So, get your thinking caps on:

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

I mean really, isn't it worth going for even if global warming is a myth?

Let's see, how do you turn atmospheric CO2 into something useful, like maybe crumpets and jam? Sir Branson wants to know!

Pfft! I'm not posting my answer here! I'm sending it directly to Sir Branson. All I can tell you is that it's a really really really good idea that is totally going to work. OK. One hint: Platypus bladders.

I've said too much.

I mean really, isn't it worth going for even if global warming is a myth?

I'm going to treat this as one of the debate questions, as I think it is a very important aspect. As I have stated in several of the global warming threads, I remain unconvinced that CO2 is the cause of global warming, even if such warming is indeed happening. However, I am also firmly convinced that this is absolutely the correct approach to such problems, and that it will spur technological innovations that will benefit mankind even if none of them are ever used to actually combat global warming. It is such innovation that has kept , and will most likely continue to keep, technology ahead of environmental issues, even (especially) the very issues caused by technology in the first place.

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?

While I am skeptical of the role CO2 plays in global warming, there seems to be little doubt that CO2 levels have indeed increased and are continuing to do so. Therefore, it is very appropriate to investigate means of reducing them even if they have nothing to do with global warming (and it would certainly be VERY important to do so if they do indeed play a significant role in such warming). I also am a firm believer that human ingenuity will indeed develop and implement the technology to solve this (or other) issues. As daunting a task as it may be, I believe we could develop and implement complete terraforming technologies within a few decades if we dedicated ourselves to it. Given that, making changes in a single component of our own atmosphere seems almost trivial. Developing the technology is probablhy well within our grasp currently...after that it would just be a matter of committing resources to it. As such, Branson has taken the proper steps to speed up the process. Kudo's to him!!!!

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

As I stated, I am skeptical of CO2's importance in global warming, but I can't think of any better way to spend the $25 million. Note the tremendous strides taken in space travel by a similar reward. Anything that spurs human ingenuity creates its own value. Consider the list of products created through the NASA moon flight programs--many of which we consider staples of existence today. The return of such investments is almost always considerably above the costs. Human ingenuity is an incredible thing--it just needs to be given a little push sometimes.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

Simple, yet complex. Buy up all the rain forest, and keep it from being turned into relatively useless cropland. We live in a symbiotic system, and trees use the CO2 and produce oxygen for us, just as we use Oxygen and produce CO2 for them. The vast majority of CO2 usage comes from the Amazonian rain forest, which has been disappearing at a tremendous rate. The increase in atmospheric CO2 levels coincides with this reduction in the rain forest. Stop that, and you'll have the largest possible impact on increasing CO2 levels, IMHO. Essentially, the earth already has the filter (technology) we need, we're just rapidly destroying it (proving once again that despite all our ingenuity, humans are still rather stupid creatures, just as the mice and dolphins have long been saying ). No terraforming is even necessary, and you'll also have a dramatic impact on species reduction as well.

Simple, huh? OK, where's my money?

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

I agree with Hobbes that we have the technology to do this at our fingertips if only we get motivated to pull it off.

My idea involves a combination of biology, aternative energy and good old capitalism. Here's how it would work:

First we develop via genetic engineering a long-lived green plant species that doesn't go out of control like kudzu in Mississippi. The plant species will turn CO2 into oxygen and sugar via photosynthesis, and at a rapid rate. The species will also take the simple sugar and produce other things. Yes, crumpets and jam are possible, but so are building materials, fruits, nuts and maybe even hippies, but I'm not sure what use that'd be.

I'm seeing a vining plant that would snake around an internal grid housed in the CO2 extraction building. Grow lights will produce the energy to make photosynthesis work, but what makes the electricity for that?

Ah, here's where alternative energy comes in. Let's say the CO2 extraction facility is located near an ocean. Between wind and tidal alternative energy, enough electricity will be generated to light the plant and run the ventilation fans. High CO2 air goes in, high O2 air comes out.

By using the accordion principle to squeeze lots of surface area into a small space, much like on modern auto air filters, a 100Wx100Lx50H foot growing facility could provide 500,000 square feet of greenery, with each grid being a foot apart. These facilities could also be built underground.

To water and feed the green plants, urban sewage could be used in a hydroponic way before purification for release into the environment.

Eventually plant waste will build up in the form of dead leaves, stems and roots. This material becomes the CO2 sink and can be place back into the earth after being hydraulically compressed into small, black packages, sometimes known as coal. Alternatively, they can be sold as Christmas gifts for naughty children, or given eyes and smiles to be sold as pet CO2 sinks.

Through the sale of goods produced at the extraction facility, the cost of building will be covered and profit made, which can be rolled back into the company to produce more extraction facilities, eventually to extract too much CO2 leading to global cooling. What then?

Hey, you know those lumps of coal these places produce? Burn them.

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?

I do think human ingenuity can solve this problem, and I agree that the way to do it is to provide some incentive for creative suggestions, like this. I mentioned on another thread that I think it would be great if we had the environmental equivalent of a DARPA agency. The best and brightest minds in the world could compete for contracts, to field extraordinary ideas. Such technologies could then progress to the point the industry will have incentive to take on the risk (like Hobbes mentioned, the same thing happened with the space program...it brought us everything from microwaves to iron-free shirts).



Are you sure that's where the majority of CO2 is absorbed? I remember that the scientists in the Biosphere II project had trouble creating enough oxygen in their environment by the use of plants alone...the CO2 levels were very high. They theorized that the majority of CO2 absorbed (and O2 developed) is actually likely due to the microorganisms in the sea....which are being killed off right now. Our sea is a giant buffer zone that absorbs the excess heat, and the increasing sea temperature is also effecting sea life. Per my 25 million dollar idea, I think it would be relatively easy to increase the level of O2 developing/CO2 absorbing organisms in the sea. What's not so certain is the potential other consequences that might do to the ecological balance.

Edited to add: Hey! I just looked at the photo and now I remember who Sir Richard Branson is. The Virgin Air guy...he is truly a fantastic human being.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?
Ahhh, I like this guy. A crackpot self-made billionaire who's willing to put his own money towards solving a problem he percieves. This will likely do more to motivate solutions than any politically motivated, agendized, bureaucratic gobbledlygook coming out of the IPCC.

Unfortunately, my solution, which is similar in some respects to AuthorMusicians, suffers from the same potentially fatal flaw as AM's. It relies on genetic engineering. And we know how well that's flying amonst the intelligentsia these day, eh?

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?
I believe that any problems presented by global warming in the near (i.e., next 200 years) term will be solved by human ingenuity. As for the havoc wrought by the panic over global warming in the meantime, I'm not quite so confident.

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

1} Give 2.5 mill to assorted worthy charities.
2} Pay off my debts.
3} Secure my children's college educations
4} Pay somebody else to finish this gawdauphool remodelling job I'm trapped on.
5} Take my Mom on a cruise to Thailand
6} Buy 3 Triumph Bonnevilles and one Ural Patrol and spend next summer riding to Alaska with all my kids.
7} Live comfortably for the rest of my life.

8} Send Mike and Jaime out to a nice dinner.

I am with Hobbes ansd skeptical on CO2 (that we produce) as the cause of any warming but this IS the best way to get people to look for any technological solution. It has been used by DARPA for robotic vehicle research and with spectacular results.


We will move from fossil fuels in a hundred years or so. It will be done.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

Why remove any CO2? The scare over carbon is silly. CO2 only absorbs energy from certain small bands of the overall much, much larger energy spectrum that reaches us. More elevation of CO2 levels will have little new effect on global temperatures, as absorption of the small spectra of energy wavelengths by CO2 has largely already happened (>75-90%) at today's CO2 level. The minuscule temperature rise that has occasioned is generally for the better. Because energy absorption is logarithmic (most effects are first), not linear (effects are progressive) by CO2, and we are well past the "knee" of the curve, further CO2 presence will mean little added absorption no matter how much it is regardless if that is 2x or 3x over pre-industrial levels. A black window will get no darker no matter how many additional times it is painted. Additionally, as the sun's flux and irradence recedes from its recent extraordinary highs, which is the major forcing of the last century's warming trend and cycles down as it always has as a result, we will need all the boost to temps we can get.

Sir Richard Branson's modern business model relies more on a talent for publicity and a real talent for structuring debt (hardly any of his business make any significant profits). H'es bought the Greenhouse effect theory of Global Warming, but by concentrating on CO2 he misses out on methane, which is a more powerful greenhouse gas.



I'm a little rusty, but I though the "greenhouse effect" was a known property of certain atmospheric gases which are transparent to short wavelength radiation (UV, visible, etc.) but which reflect IR - radiated heat - and long wave radio. (The same property accounts for why long wave radio transmissions travel beyond line of sight. ) It has nothing to do with the "energy" absorbed "from certain small bands of the overall". CO2 can be shown to have this property in the laboratory, as can methane.

The greenhouse effect is real and does work - it is the reason our planet is not a frozen snowball like Mars.

It is also established beyond doubt that the planetary climate is undergoing a warming phase of it's natural cycle.

What IS open to debate (but where there is mounting evidence that the current phase of warming is indeed anthropogenic) is whether the speed and extent of the warming is influenced or even driven by human activity - burning fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2 levels, and increasing methane levels through intensive agriculture and increased use of landfill waste disposal.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

I'd say a good first step would be to concentrate on methane first, not CO2. Bottle all those cow farts and landfill exhalations, and invent a gizmo to extract the methane already in the air. Then methane obtained as a fuel. Apart form anything else, it's cleaner than coal, and as it's a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 but burning it creates CO2 on a one-to-one basis (CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O), it would at least slow down the greenhouse effect until such time as we can work out what to do about the CO2. It might also help reduce dependency on oil, which creates it's own problems.

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?

It's not that it never will be done, just that by the time the biggest international sceptics on global warming (the USA - it's no coincidence that every poster so far has emphasised how sceptical they are before answering the debate questions) get confronted with their mistake in the 90% likelihood (IPCC report headlines) that global warming is indeed manmade, and they have been the biggest single contributor to it, the global ecosystem and biodiversity upon which we all depend will have been irreparably damaged, not to mention the death and disruption caused to uncounted millions of human lives.

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

Since I think it really is a problem and the Earth isn't fine, it's an academic question. Though in the hypothetical scenario, I'd probably do much the same with the money as Bikerdad



Point of etiquette - it is usual to refer to such a Knight of the Realm as either "Sir Richard" or "Sir Richard Branson". "Sir Branson" is an archaic usage only now found in 1950s Technicolour adventure films starring Robert Taylor. And , it seems.

You can't be blamed for getting it wrong, since for the past 230 or so years such things have been a foreign hait - and personally I would not defend the honours system or the monarchy anyway.

Okay BD, say genetic engineering becomes a liability because ConAgra brings up patent infringements or some such legal challenge that sucks away at the $25 million. Nobody has a patent on photosynthesis.

What is photosynthesis? We learned that in grade school. It's the magic that happens in green plant life that turns a few chemicals, water, air and sunshine into all the food we eat, 'cept mushrooms, and who likes those?

Although a critical component to life as we know it, photosynthesis is a simple chemical reaction that can be duplicated artificially. So, instead of living green plants, how about dead green slime? There's no genetics involved at all, just a manufactured gunk that, when it gets the right levels of chemicals, water, air and sunlight (artificial), it makes sugar (thus absorbing the C in CO2) and releases oxygen.

Through another natural process that involves yeast, the extraction facility could produce fuel, but where's the CO2 sink?

I'm seeing giant Twinkies in a vast underground chamber to someday be release to the world in a grand orgy of sugar highs. And everyone knows that Twinkies have no expiration date. There, the perfect CO2 sink.

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

I would upgrade the '95 KLR650 to a newer model, and probably trade the Cherokee for a Wrangler. Pay off the house. Get some new socks. Put up solar electric and feed the grid (like feeding squirrels in the park). Donate some here and there, like to and my retirement plan, the Salvation Army, also volunteer fire departments.

Don't think the kids will get free college money. I'll make them work for it somehow.

Maybe a good idea for a business will develop. That'd be cool, create some jobs. The kids could work there for the college money.



Sorry Julian, there's no etiquette filter here. Guess I'm just one of those morons from the colonies. At least I spelled crumpet right, right?

Also, I'm not much of a skeptic about the tons of CO2 pumped into the air and that it probably affects the atmosphere. Nevertheless, I screw with it because, well, that's what I do. Maybe breaking etiquette was done from the subconscious colonial rebellious archetypical three-cornered hat guy with a musket. I know the sarcasm about attitudes toward global warming comes from there, toward both those in denial and those who know without a doubt. Whigs and Tories, eh?

Did spend my formative years in the 1950s. That's gotta be it.

The difficulty lies not in the patent realm, but rather from the opponents of biotechnology, who take a stance of "biotechnology bad, period. "

Biotech's most doctrinaire antagonists don't disguise their hostility. Technophobe Jeremy Rifkin claims that it threatens "a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust." Greenpeace demands biotech products' "complete elimination [from] the food supply and the environment." And sacked UK environment minister Michael Meacher, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace, has admitted that there could never be sufficient testing to convince him of the safety of biotech foods: "The real problem is whether 10, 20, 30 years down the track, serious and worrying things [will] happen that none of us ever predicted."


I do. On pizza, sauteed, on a nice steak, in spaghetti, etc... mmmmm, shrooms...

I don't see the Greenies as having any power in this, whereas the patent holders of genetic engineering obviously do. But let's go along with your unlikely scenario and say that Greenpeace raises a ruckus. How about we genetically engineer the CO2 sucking plants to not produce food products at all, and to not emit any air-born pollen? Make them so bugs have to pollinate, like bees, then we could sell honey and get a fat government subsidy (might still be true, not sure). That'd shut down the criticism just like that, especially if the bees were not allowed to rome free to cross-pollinate with a natural species.

But fundamentally, Greenpeace can criticize all it wants. It doesn't have any power, other than being a pain in the whazunski.

So what else can plants produce that can be sold besides fruits, nuts and building material? How about medicines? Lots of medicines come from plants. You can drink aspen bark tea instead of taking an aspirin, same stuff. What if these engineered plants produced little pods of insulin-bearing beans? Or maybe blood pressure controller?

Back in grade school I didn't like asparagus or mushrooms. My tastes have changed, and agree that 'shrooms have a place in the food chain. You can keep the asparagus.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

Why should I change who I am? I saw the story in our local paper, which unfortunately did not include a link. I started searching for someone who knew someone, and sent an idea off to Hillary Clinton with the request to please forward it.

Simply outlined, the largest source of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is most likely combustion of fossil based fuels. A large consumer of those fuels are military organizations with their planes, tanks, trucks, etc. Their explosives also, in all likelihood result in the production of Carbon Dioxide.

So, first we outlaw war.

Second, we accept the biblical prediction that a day will come when nations beat their swords into plowshares. We invest the money and energy not being spent on wars into agricultural projects. The more plants that we can grow, the more that Carbon Dioxide will be converted into Oxygen and plant cells.

Third, is to incorporate more projects like one which was reported on here in Muskegon. The City dump was generating methane, so it was captured and is being sold to a local foundry to reduce their energy bills and to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.

Fourth: Recycle...

Soft drink companies might want to work with powerplants to find a way to capture the Carbon Dioxide from their exhaust stacks before it reaches the atmosphere.

I'm not from New York State, so I got an automated response from Hillary's Web Site saying that I would have to submit my letter to my local senators.

I'm also not a statesman or an engineer. I really can't initiate world peace or create the equipment to efficiently capture gases from the atmosphere. I can't fund such a project, but maybe someone will see some value to my idea and get a ball rolling...

Um- the algea in the ocean, the phytoplankton IIRC, pumps more O2 from C02 into the atmosphere around antartica than all the rainforests in the world combined- another portion of the man made problem- the killing of the seas- the global warming problem- which, up here, is right in front of your face almost daily- there is no "jury" on this one- a conviction has been handed down! - well, it is a domino effect- less phyto plankton, less fish, more poeple killing the habitat etc.

Then, on top of that, we pump so much C02 so steadily.

Anyway- YOU may not be convinced Hobbes- but pretty much every scientist on the planet that works in this field disagrees with you at this point.

The evidence is overwhelming.

However- that beings said- I found one quote, which, unfortunately, I can't seem to find a link too- which is atributed to a guy that "mines" Co2 from the air- says it costs 300 bucks a ton to remove CO2 in "mining" operations- with a mere 25 million- you can mine quite a bit of CO2- which makes me ask- how much CO2 do we need to get rid of, how much do we need to offset to stop our runaway global warming?

Good questions, and I'll add the methane observation in here too.

We've all heard of, or should have if paying attention in school, the rain cycle. The sun warms the oceans, water evaporates into clouds, the fresh water falls as rain or snow or sleet or grapple or super-cooled stuff that turns to slick ice upon contact with anything not air, eventually flows down water sheds to creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, lawn sprinklers, swimming pools, irrigation ditches and eventually to the ocean where the whole thing starts over again. The cycle is what makes the oceans salty and Lake Superior not salty.

Okay, there's a carbon cycle too that incorporates carbon sinks in the form of buried vegetable matter (coal, oil, gas). What we do when we burn fossil fuels is to release ancient carbon sinks into the atmosphere, thus adding more carbon to the surface cycle.

So, if the idea is to regulate how much carbon goes into the atmosphere in the form of CO2, figure out how much has been released by fossil fuels and yank that back into carbon sinks in the ground. (Giant Twinkies in vast caverns would be one way.)

And if too much carbon gets yanked out, put some back in. Eat the giant Twinkies.

On to methane: Methane is a volatile gas released from flatulent bovines, mostly they say. But it's part of the surface carbon cycle, and so could be used for fuel. It's carbon-based but not fossilized. That's okay for the surface carbon cycle because no ancient carbon is released into the surface from the ground.

Another approach might be to add enzymes to bovine diets to help digest grass and feed more completely, thus reducing the release of methane. This could be a better approach in that collecting methane from bovines is probably too much trouble. So, sprinkle some Beano into the hay.

But then, the $25 million is for CO2 extraction, not methane control. Light a match?

CR, I'm not going to bother arguing with you about anthrogenic global warming, as has a prohibition on religious debates, and I'm not going to try to talk you out of your religion.

Anybody else interested in the non-official line can start here: Skeptic's Guide to Global Warming


AM,

Greenpeace is simply an example of a larger problem in Europe, and to a lesser extent here. I'm not saying the problem is insurmountable, but it is very real, and governments are involved. This gives a cursory overview of the underlying problem.

WTO and Biotech, who won?

And yes, I believe that your approach is far more practical that Curmudgeon's. Me? I want genetically engineered fast growing, tropical hardwood quality trees that can live in a much wider range of habitats. Then again, I am a woodworker.

I mean really, isn't it worth going for even if global warming is a myth?

Well then maybe they could cure smog, but that is probably a myth also. I have a hard time buying all the hype proposed in global warming, I mean anybody could take years to produce research that was nothing more then them hiding out and generating reports on nothing to get money, and of course you know that money is going to be used to bring back the USSR baby!

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?

There is not enough focus on the reality of global warming overall for one, and another is people think its going to be bad for the economy. I mean first of all we have a material that most everybody wants, going from the idea that the earth is not comprised of an infinite amount of matter peak oil or the amount of oil becomes a reality. So in that light we would continue on until oil shortage became and abrupt reality affecting a much larger economy and populous anyways, so really overall its just complacency, laziness, greed and general lack of concern that leads to the reasons people don’t activate against global warming. It will be more of a prominent issue to some other generation and well people today for the most part can accept this.

The other idea this relates to is again lack of drive for change. Giving our understanding, such as nanotechnology and of course chemistry we could make some multipurpose materials for modern day life that drastically cut down on the need for various natural resources and the related ecological impact, but such wont happen(it could also tie into energy needs but hey). We could also find and develop greener technology for energy production, many happen to be in primitive stages and unfortunately they will probably stay there until we have to use them.

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

I have no idea really.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

First we need to understand the physical equilibrium responsible for the earths environment and work to match it for sustainability. This would include understanding from every field of natural science. It would probably mean population standards, or how many people can be alive and so on, which will never happen until soylent green is no longer a work of fiction I imagine. The point being is human population is constantly growing, it requires a certain standard for living unless you favor hunter gather, which wont happen, so as time goes on there is subsequently more and more people to the point in which toilet papers companies have to buy the Amazon rain forest to keep up with demand on toilet paper, its simple math overall.

Second the simple idea of adding a CO2 and other greenhouse gases at an constantly accelerating rate needs to be educated into the public, That in another hundred years of this combined with deforestation and other ecological changes and population growth the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will undoubtedly grow to epic portions. We change the environment via actions, its rather simple, so then the carbon cycle will change, weather patterns will change, so on and so forth. It would be the same as studying entropy in a mix of chemicals and then altering the amount of one or two of the chemicals, you will have a different outcome based on the same amount of energy used to study entropy(I think its called quanta but not sure), example is how fast an ice cube will melt at 90 degrees compared to say 50 degrees.

Understanding on its own and then proper behavior to sustain is all that’s really required. This of course has giant ramifications that I doubt many understand and a great majority probably fear overall.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

We could eliminate another human source of Carbon Dioxide, fermentation. Gasoline/ethanol mixes must already be releasing large amounts of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere in the pre-production processes. We would of course lose bread as well as soft drinks, beer, wine, liquor, and other alcoholic beverages in the process.

But back to the world peace idea. Civilian Hummer owners get criticized because their "cars" burn too much fuel. I don't imagine that the military versions are somehow more fuel efficient, or that a soldier who is not paying for the fuel in the tank is somehow more concerned than a civilian about how many miles he drives it daily.

What is your idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, thus curing the Earth's fever?

Evaluating the inputs, processes and outputs to the natural system, the most influential CO2 consumers are plants and producers are animals. So, the best solution is to encourage photosynthesis while discouraging respiration. How? Rewrite the endangered species act so that all plants are endangered and all animals except humans are "fair game". Eat less vegetables. Eat more meat. Outlaw vegetarianism. Restore the sizable bounty on pelts, preferably of herbivores like bunny rabbits-- but really of any CO2-producing creature other than humans would need increased "population control" if not outright extermination. Mandate roof and sidewalk gardens. Abolish ranching and animal husbandry in favor of depleting wild populations, just short of ecological disaster. As a secondary solution, outlaw active vulcanism. Install massive air filters a-la domed stadia over every volcano. Cover calderas in frozen tundra.

If in doubt, why won't this ever be done through human ingenuity?

We have consciences. We're not willing to do what it would really take on a global scale to have a significant influence on global temperature (at least, I hope we're not). Also, about 90% of us have faith in something bigger than we are to handle the problems that are bigger than all humankind. We would like to believe that by doing the right thing within our own microcosm, the macrocosm will take care of itself. That's not scientific-- it requires faith.

We should be far more willing to focus on doing what's right in our own little worlds-- reducing pollution, recycling, wasting less, planting gardens, reforesting the countryside, finding cleaner sources of electricity (solar, wind), replacing the internal combustion engine with the flux capacitor, etc. All such ideals are extremely easy, even motivating 100% of the earth's human population to agree, compared to what it would really take to significantly change the weather worldwide.

We still need to make local environments a better place for everyone and everything to live, but if we think we can actually change global weather trends without killing trillions of wild animals, we're kidding ourselves. We need to think locally, and stop acting globally. Worldwide groupthink toward global climate change could lead to some fairly unsavory "solutions".

If this really isn't a problem and the Earth is fine, what would you do with the $25 million?

I'm willing to believe Branson is sincere about wanting to do what it right for the world, as best he knows how; he's investing $3 billion to fight global warming, including $400 million in Virgin Fuels to develop clean energy. I commend what he is doing with Virgin Fuels, but the $25M is a publicity stunt. Branson is welcome to waste his own money any way he chooses; but let's not kid ourselves-- Branson's companies waste far more energy and generate far more pollution trying to make a spare $25 million than they will ever replenish.

Yes, Branson's $25M is a publicity stunt, like Al Gore's "Convenient Lie" and his invention of the Internet (which he spun from a failed effort to replace the Internet with interactive TV). If Branson can get enough Greens to fly Virgin Atlantic, buy Virgin Records music, and switch to Virgin Mobile prepaid phones, then his $25M could be an inexpensive ad campaign-- especially if he never has to pay out the money because no one finds a good enough final solution. You don't win the money until your invention is already provably cleaning significant amounts of CO2 out of the air worldwide. You get $5M if the plan shows enough promise, but you have to pay it back if it doesn't actually solve the problem in the real world. Good luck.

I mean really, isn't it worth going for even if global warming is a myth?

Well, if 99% of climatologists were correct in the 1970's, we are on the verge of an ice age, and need to jump start CO2 production to increase global temperatures by enhancing the greenhouse effect. That would mean burning down the Amazon, rewarding vegetarians, outlawing animal hunting, and protecting animals as if they are "people, too" -- pretty much what we're already doing. Wikipedia's "Global cooling" article reads like a defensive apology on the topic.

If we start trying to make the world colder, only to find out the 1970s climatologists were right and the 1990s climatologists are wrong, then we could usher in the ice age even faster. Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing when it comes to terraforming and playing with the global thermostat. Now, if only Branson would award someone $25M for an idea on how to do nothing, I might stand a chance.

Let's see, how do you turn atmospheric CO2 into something useful, like maybe crumpets and jam? Sir Branson wants to know!

Carbonate more sugar water, perhaps?

Reducing CO2 is not the best target for a $25m reward-- fighting pollution and wasteful consumption habits would be better goals-- people can more easily understand them, and they'd probably result in lower CO2 levels at the same time. I would be far more impressed with Branson's $3B investment against global warming and his $25M prize if, like his $400M investment in Virgin Fuels, they were targeting problems that need to be solved whether or not humans are already exerting too much influence on global climate.

Let's clean up the environment because it is a good enough goal in itself, not because politicians feast on hysteria. Al Gore would not be the first to revive a dead political career by jumping ahead of a climate change bandwagon. The truth is that climate change, whether Global Warming or Global Cooling, has been a relatively regular feature of politics for more than a century. It has far more to do with which way the political winds are blowing and the sources of funding for climatologists than anything resembling real science. So many scientists have been willing to sell out for politics that it is difficult to separate propaganda from truth.

Take the recent UN summary of a report that humans definitely (with 90% certainty) caused global warming, which Branson cites as a catalyst for the $25M prize. It was conducted by politicians first deciding what conclusions they desired, then shopping for scientists to sign on. Dissenters were quickly ejected from the process. All that can be concluded from the report summary (the report itself is still several months away) is that world politicians like the idea of anthropogenic causation of global warming, particularly when it can be blamed on capitalism and industrialized nations. The anthropogenic question actually suffered a setback-- if the science were truly 90% conclusive, it would not have needed so much heavy-handed political pressure to generate the desired outcome.

I, for one, would really like to know whether humans are significantly influencing climate change, but the process has been so dominated by politicians that I seriously doubt either side is delivering any straight answers. In the meantime, I recycle, conserve energy, picket polluters, use solar power to recharge batteries, etc. It's not much, and it may not stop a new ice age or warming period from befalling the planet, but it still helps a little locally, and that's good enough for me.

Its nice to bring up aim in some fair an accurate balance but it would also be nice to report to be people what the IPCC is actually.

Here is an excerpt from the IPCC.

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

So now how is what you said about the IPCC an honest dipiction of what they are? Do you have negative feelings against the group?

IPCC

About fairness in accuracy and reporting here is another nifty link.


"Time for a currency transfer

To the surprise of many, the George W. Bush administration released a report in late August 2004 stating that carbon-dioxide emissions and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases are the most plausible explanation for global warming. Contrary to previous presidential proclamations, the report indicated that rising temperatures in North America were attributable in part to human activity and that this was having detectable effects on animal and plant life. New York Times environment reporter Andrew Revkin (8/26/04) dubbed this "a striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change."

Yet despite this recent report, the Bush administration did not flinch in its stance on the issue of global warming. It continued to spurn the Kyoto Protocol, oppose actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and emphasize uncertainties in the underlying climate-change science, calling for more research before taking action to curb human contributions to warming (New York Times , 11/13/02). In fact, John H. Marburger, Bush's science adviser, said (Washington Post , 8/27/04) that the most recent report has "no implications for policy." Marburger asserted, "There is no discordance between this report and the president's position on climate."

So why has the United States government—from President George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush—been so reluctant to seriously address global warming? A number of factors have contributed to this spectacular inaction: the oil and coal industries' tanker-load of annual campaign contributions to national politicians, these industries' well-connected cadre of lobbyists working Capitol Hill with aplomb, the crucial disjuncture between a scientific community that deals in a language of uncertainty and probability and a political culture that barks "If it ain't certain, it ain't real," the Bush administration's long-standing relationship with the energy industries, and so on.

But a much subtler mechanism is also at work: the journalistic norm of balanced reporting, widely considered one of the traditional pillars of good journalism. By giving equal time to opposing views, the major mainstream newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming. Certainly there is a need to represent multiple viewpoints, but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served. Meanwhile, the world dangerously warms, conservative think tanks gut the precautionary principle, and humankind—from the Carbon Club to the Boys and Girls Club—faces a dire future."

One more chunk from the link in case it does not get read of course.

"These gloomy findings and dire predictions are not the offerings of a gaggle of fringe scientists with an addiction to the film Apocalypse Now. Rather, these forecasts are put forth by the IPCC, the largest, most reputable peer-reviewed body of climate-change scientists in history. Formed by the United Nations in 1990 and composed of the top scientists from around the globe, the IPCC employs a decision-by-consensus approach. In fact, D. James Baker, administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, has said about human contributions to global warming (Washington Post , 11/12/97) that "there's no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know—except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."

Here is the link, its from fair, a group similar to aim I suppose.

Fair link

A little more on the IPCC in case of confusion, you know they spoke of that in the bible so it has to be true, confusion that is.

"• Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to
379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range
over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide
concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it
has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm
per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}
• The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial
period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller
contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC"

This is from working group 1. They are the group that deals with the science part of global warming.

Here is the link to the pdf file, is a nice read also, so I hope you read it.

PDF from working group 1

The IPCC is a composite body though, or organization. It employes interdiciplinary methods to deal with the issue of global warming. Here are the other groups in it.

"Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it."

"Working Group III assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change."

"The Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is responsible for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme."

All found on the IPCC site of course.

What, no mention of Senator John Kerry, Barbar Boxer, and the rest of the Senate who flushed Kyoto? awww, c'mon.

Here's why, and its not because of any partisan (on either side) wrangling. Its because the political leadership, even "dumb ol' Shrub" know that the economic cost is way too high, i.e. the trade-offs don't make sense.

Jonah Goldberg writes:
in the history of trade-offs, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity. Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800 percent is unknowable, but let's stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious). That's still an amazing bargain. Life expectancies in the United States increased from about 47 years to about 77 years. Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.

Given the option of getting another 1,800 percent richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat
...
Their proposed remedies cost so much money — bidding starts at 1 percent of global GDP a year and rises quickly...

The costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow — a total impossibility — we'd barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that "it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century" to beat back global warming.

Nice article. What does he base his opinion on for why changeing to stop global warming would cost so much? That would be nice to see also. I mean I could say that changing to defeat global warming would increase GDP by one percent every year, whats the big difference, or thats right, data and facts.

Also why would you bring up democrats, do you see a democrat tag on me, also it mentioned clinton, I am lost as to why you would say that.

Plus with bush agreeing with global warming, I guess that means its true now I suppose.

Here is a link I found I think it has a interesting point which I will lay out with the link.

"The anti-globalisers will argue that the WTO enforces agreements that cheat the poor, but that is not the issue here. Indeed, the poorest nations of the world have very little to fear from a global agreement to limit carbon emissions because their emissions are so low. From a different angle, the climate change sceptics will argue that enforced targets would represent an attack on national sovereignty. But strangely that doesn't seem to bother them when it comes to enforcing free trade."

Link

Lastly, if global warming is real, or if you will at least accept the notion that its real because bush does, how much do you think thats going to cost?

"Europe's leading insurance companies are now so worried by global warming, they are likely to use their financial muscle to get governments and the world's oil companies to do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

A greenhouse gas conference organised by the reinsurer, Swiss Re, has been discussing a report backed by nearly 300 financial institutions, which argued that global warming now poses a "serious threat" to the world economy.

The insurers have been drawing on the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded we can no longer be in any doubt that humans do effect the weather.

The result, say the insurers, is that in the next decade, the annual cost of global warming will hit $150bn a year - that's five times the annual earnings of the entire population of Nigeria."

Link

"Corporate America warms to fight against global warming
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Corporate leaders don't normally invite the federal government to raise their taxes. But that's exactly what Paul Anderson is doing.
Anderson, the chairman of Charlotte-based Duke Energy, wants the federal government to fight global warming by taxing companies based on the "greenhouse gases" they pump into the atmosphere — just the sort of big-government remedy the Bush administration says would hobble the economy.

For his efforts, Anderson has been excoriated by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and threatened with an "exorcism" by an industry peer.

But Anderson, 61, is no closet left-winger. He's a registered Republican, Bush backer and member of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. That such a Big Business stalwart is demanding federal action on climate change illustrates an unmistakable evolution in corporate thinking, motivated both by evidence that global warming already is affecting the economy and by the prospect of fat profits from new environment-friendly products.

"If we approach this rationally, it will not be disruptive to the economy and will not turn the world upside down and will, at the same time, address the problem," says Anderson."

Link

Also would it not be in left field to suggest that change if done properly and at a decent pace would slowly return us back to the norm save having staved off global warming?

I don't know where he's getting it, but the "IPCC TAR (Synthesis Report) suggested values of $78bn to $1141bn annual mitigation costs, amounting to 0.2% to 3.5% of current world GDP (which is around $35 trillion), or 0.3% to 4.5% of GDP if borne by the richest nations alone." So, given where Goldberg generally comes from, he's actually being pretty charitable at only 1%.

Well, first, because you're not the only one reading this thread, second, its the Democrats who are squawking the most about global warming, and its the Senate (which is why I only named Senators) who put the kibosh on that.

No, it just means that Bush agrees on it. Bush is wrong on quite a few things.

Actually, the poorest nations have a lot to fear, because ultimately the global warming bandwagon is one of concentrating political authority. If the poor nations are confident that they can control said concentration, then bully for them. Me, I'd be mighty skeptical, cause power and money tend to go hand in hand, and the scope of authority involved in "stopping global warming" is frightening.

yeah, sure, its real, wether Bush says so or not. After all, he says that Islam is a "religion of peace", and that ain't so. Back to global warming though, to say that its warming doesn't mean a lot. How much? Okay, 0.7 degrees Celsius over the 20th Century. How much more in the future? Uhhh, don't know. We simply don't have enough reliable data (as opposed to snazzy computer models) to make a prediction. If I've lived someplace for 20 years, after stepping outside in the morning and taking a look around, I can give you a reasonably accurate prediction on what the weather will be like in the afternoon. Unfortunately, even though we've been here 10,000 years (bright shining as the star), we haven't been paying enough attention, for long enough, to make the sort of accurate predictions that it would be rational to act on.

Your business quotes are interesting, and by gosh, I'm all for letting those businesses invest their money how they want. Some of them could very well be "investing" in PR with this stuff, and some could be serious. Whether PR or serious, neither position is any guarantee of being correct.

There's always talk about the costs of global warming, but what about the benefits? Let's accept for a moment that the seas rise at the current rate (which has been slowing down) over the next two centuries. Oooooh, less than a foot. Let's accept that the CO2 continues to rise in the atmosphere. So? That means more plants. More plants means more food for us, more trees for me, and more oxygen for everybody. It means that even less land needs to be under cultivation to feed the same number of people. This is already happening.



Global warming is a good thing. Unless, of course, you're a climatologist who staked his reputation on the "Coming Ice Age."

What norm? We're cooler than we were a thousand years ago, and downright chilly compared to 3,000 years ago.

Still, managed changed might very well be in left field if these two folks are to be believed:

You cant be serious...

I don’t know if you actually believe what you are typing, or if you are typing it to get me to react in a certain way, or if you just don’t have anything else and still want to deny global warming, though it looks as if you accept it at times and then others deny it.

Either way its pretty scary.

Global warming is not a good thing, in any measure of it. If you put an ice cube in a container, it will melt if the temperature is right, if you raise that temp by even one degree, the ice will melt faster. If the polar ice caps melt that basically means mass extinction, I don’t know how to say this any better.

Also how you reference it is static, such is not so. The amount of CO2 we produce will double in time, and then triple in time, along with more deforestation and other ecological changes, how could you think this beneficial.

You are in essence advocating mass extinction to save a few bucks overall.

I mean natural reality is what it is, its not communistic or any other human ism, it just is. People have to face this reality just as much as any other natural reality, such as gravity.

I'm deadly serious. I accept that global warming is happening (and has been happening since the mid 17th century). I'm highly skeptical that people are the primary cause, and even more skeptical of the alarmist scenarios that demand immediate action, and highly doubtful that any action we take will actually be beneficial for humanity. Improved standards of living save lives, actions that slow down or roll back improvements in our standard of living cost lives.

What makes you think they'll melt? During the last interglacial period, here's how things were:

The caps retreated, not melted away.

Clearly, you didn't read much of what I posted except the "Global warming is a good thing" Its very simple: More CO2 = more plants, that's good. Double the CO2 in the atmosphere, sugar cane becomes more productive. All plants become more vital.

I'd suggest that you read the following regarding "mass extinction" ...Some Good News for Christmas–Reptile and Butterflies Flourishing

Which reality? That the Earth is slowly warming. So, its faced. That its our fault, that there's anything we can do about it, and that its a bad thing, those are not realities. They are theories, and increasingly weak ones. But please, feel free to provide credible support for your contentions of mass extinctions, deforestation, and the ice caps melting away.

What’s the point in posting data that supports global warming. I mean I have, more times then I can count now on this site but for the most part its either not read or simply played out as false or worse. I mean you will take some science as truth, but other as not. Here is how it is. The more people + current technology = a growing amount of CO2. So you have America currently producing CO2 at a rate equal to its population and usage. Now double that population keeping everything else the same save amount, this will double the amount of CO2 being released. Now amplify this effect across world populations. Where is all this CO2 going to go?

Also, nice of you to bring up some science you support, its one of those pick and choose things I guess, but science has not ever had to record what we are doing, because human beings have never been around doing this before, just a slightly different variable to consider.

If I can though I will put up some chunk of science, you can choose to believe it or not, because science is like faith after all.


"Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.

With this in mind the road to understanding global warming and our present climate begins with an historical journey through a chapter in Earth's history, some 30 million years before dinosaurs appeared, known as the Carboniferous Period-- a time when terrestrial Earth was ruled by giant plants and insects, and glaciers waxed and waned over a huge southern continent."

Link

So we have this equilibrium that has lasted for around 650,000 years if you follow IPCC data. That had a general amount of CO2 in existence, if you follow IPCC data from ice cores, that is now showing a growing spike, just like EPA data that somehow magically comes into play with the industrial revolution.

The earth as a system has not had industrial human beings using billions of tons of fossil fuel on a regular basis and on a constant and growing basis producing large amounts of CO2.

Now another aspect you have to maybe look at is what would rapid environmental change mean for life in general? Do you think it would be a good thing. Yes, more carbon could mean more for plants, but to bad that we keep on a regular basis reducing the amount of plant matter, so what about that one. Wait let me think, you are going to tell me next that deforestation is a good thing and will aid the needed global warming process? Just don’t ask for links about deforestation, I mean I would hope such would be common.

"OXYGEN ISOTOPE AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL (GCM) INVESTIGATIONS OF PERMO-CARBONIFEROUS CLIMATE
GROSSMAN, Ethan L., Department of Geology & Geophysics, Texas A&M Univ, College Station, TX 77843-3115, e-grossman@tamu.edu, POLLARD, David, EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State Univ - Univ Park, University Park, PA 16802, SCOTESE, Christopher R., Geological Sciences, Univ of Texas at Arlington, 500 Yates, Arlington, TX 76019, and HYDE, William T., Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke Univ, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Oxygen isotopes in Carboniferous and Early Permian brachiopod shells from North America and the Russian Platform show up to 3 per mil variations suggestive of greenhouse-icehouse-greenhouse transitions. To evaluate the paleoclimatic significance of these temporal trends as well as interregional oxygen-isotope differences, we simulated Late Paleozoic climate (360, 320, and 280 Ma) utilizing the GENESIS v. 2.0 GCM. Paleogeographies are modified from Scotese et al. (1999, J. African Earth Sci. 28:99) with topographies inferred from tectonic relationships. The model was run with 1x and 4x modern preindustrial pCO2 levels (280 ppm) for each time interval. During most of the Mississippian, the U.S. mid-continent (USM) was traversing the subtropical high of the Southern Hemisphere. By the mid-Carboniferous, the area had entered the ITCZ, and remained in the tropics through the Early Permian. Oxygen isotope data for brachiopod shells reflect in part this transit across climate zones. For the U.S. mid-continent, low oxygen isotopic values in the earliest Mississippian give way to high values in the mid-Mississippian. The d18O values decrease in the Late Mississippian, coinciding with the transition to wet, tropical climate. A d18O increase at or near the mid-Carboniferous boundary cannot be explained by precipitation-evaporation variations and is likely caused by decreasing temperatures and increasing ice volume. During the Permo-Carboniferous, the Russian Platform transited from the tropics to the subtropics. Rather than showing a d18O increase that might correspond to a progressive increase in salinity, the oxygen isotopic record shows variation on a roughly 20 m.y. time scale that likely reflects ice volume change. This includes a sharp Mid-Carboniferous d18O increase that coincides with the d18O increase in North America, further suggesting a transition from greenhouse to icehouse conditions. Oxygen isotope estimates of paleotemperature show good agreement with GCM results for some intervals (i.e., the earliest Pennsylvanian), but not for others (e.g., the latest Mississippian). Potential causes for this disagreement (e.g., inaccurate data or incorrect pCO2 estimates) are being investigated. These results demonstrate the utility of coupling climate model and isotopic studies of Paleozoic climate."

Link

Gordo, I haven't even bothered to dispute with you that global warming is happening. I've granted that CO2 is increasing. Why are you acting like I'm denying these things? I'm saying that they're good things, which would be pretty foolish if I were denying them, dontchya think?

"magically"? At least have the rhetorical decency to say "coincidentally". And beware that you're not falling prey to the Pre-Copernican Paradigm.

And the temperature started increasing before the Industrial Revolution, so linking global warming to industrialization is mighty weak.

Ahh, now this is an interesting question, but to be worthwhile it would have to include some definition of "rapid." And as for "life in general", well, again, I'd have to ask you to be more specific. If RPC kills us off but leaves the rest of the world unharmed, then its a bad thing. If we have a choice of suiciding as a species in order to save the rest of the world, or we can continue to live on a barren, lifeless rock, then get out the rock climbing gear. Beyond those two extremes, there's a lot of speculative room.
So what if we reduce the plant matter. Its what we do, its what cows do, its what beavers do, its what fires do, etc, etc. Plants grow back, its what they do. They are a renewable resource. The links I posted earlier debunk your deforestation scenario.
No, I don't think that deforestation is necessarily a good thing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It is a natural thing, happens all the time. So does reforestation.

Since this thread opened with a Brit, Sir Branson, I think I'll toss another Brit in here, Nigel Calder, former editor of New Science magazine. Its both a review of the current politically driven global warming agenda engine (hmmm, maybe global warming is jcaused by all the hot air talking about global warming?), and most importantly, a little known, new, non-greenhouse gas mechanism.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
...
{Ten years ago} Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun