"the whole climate problem is in sad need of reframing." It's not going to be easy. The climate change people have largely lost sight of the goal and concentrate on projects that don't make much economic sense.
The "solutions", such as living entirely off renewable energy, will kill an awful lot of people in famines and resource wars. Perhaps as many or even more than will die from the worst case climate excursions, and a lot sooner. There are far too many people to live much longer on fossil energy. If you want to reduce human misery, fix the energy problem. Cheap, abundant energy, $30-$50 per bbl synthetic oil, 1-2 cent per kWh power. http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/266116/oil-prices-lead-hard-financial-limits If you do that, people will shut off the sources of CO2 simply because it's more expensive to burn coal than to use the new source of power, and the climate, to whatever extent it is affected by CO2, will recover. To get the existing CO2 down, biochar is fine, but frankly, it's worth doing for other reasons than storing carbon. You can also get it down as low as you want by making extra synthetic oil and pumping it back into the empty oil fields. Keith PS Of course if Kurzweil is right, we only have to make it to the mid 2040s before things change utterly. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM, William Calvin <[email protected]> wrote: > But philosophical and scientific approach must watch out for the hazards of > reification, as when emissions became a rate when most people think it a > quantity. The terms one picks may frame the whole discussion, as has > happened with "global warming" becoming the planet's near-surface air temp > averaged over land and water, all four seasons, etc. > > This focus has lost 1) heat storage in deeper ocean than that affecting > near-surface air temp, and 2) the climate effects due to uneven heating > (land 2x ocean, Arctic ever greater) and circulation changes (polar jet > meanders etc). > > As I have said elsewhere, the whole climate problem is in sad need of > reframing. > -Bill > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Sadly not. As the recent discussions with ETC group of this list shows, >> having solutions doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for publicly dismissing >> others'. >> >> Seems the concept of 'least worst' option hasn't permeated the climate >> debate. >> >> A >> >> On 19 Jan 2014 09:33, "Charles H. Greene" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> When we are on the verge of truly catastrophic climate change, I wonder >>> what philosophers of science will offer us as an alternative? Obviously, if >>> they wish to discourage scientists from even exploring possible >>> geoengineering options, they must have alternatives to offer, right? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://anthem-group.net/2014/01/18/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering-clive-hamilton/ >>> >>> What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton >>> >>> Abstract: Proposals to respond to climate change by geoengineering the >>> Earth’s climate system, such as by regulating the amount of sunlight >>> reaching the planet, may be seen as a radical fulfillment of Heidegger’s >>> understanding of technology as destiny. Before geoengineering was >>> conceivable, the Earth as a whole had to be representable as a total object, >>> an object captured in climate models that form the epistemological basis for >>> climate engineering. Geoengineering is thinkable because of the >>> ever-tightening grip of Enframing, Heidegger’s term for the modern epoch of >>> Being. Yet, by objectifying the world as a whole, geoengineering goes beyond >>> the mere representation of nature as ‘standing reserve’; it requires us to >>> think Heidegger further, to see technology as a response to disorder >>> breaking through. If in the climate crisis nature reveals itself to be a >>> sovereign force then we need a phenomenology from nature’s point of view. If >>> ‘world grounds itself on earth, and earth juts through world’, then the >>> climate crisis is the jutting through, and geoengineering is a last attempt >>> to deny it, a vain attempt to take control of destiny rather than enter a >>> free relation with technology. In that lies the danger. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > William H. Calvin > [email protected] WilliamCalvin.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
