[dinopello]

Thought I'd start this for the engineering-types out there as a fun thought experiment and to see what creative ideas you could come up with.

Let's say you were given the job of increasing the average global temperature by at least 6 degrees C. The resources of the world are offered to you and are at your disposal, but you should try to do it in the most cost-efficient way. The threshold timeframe is 60 years but the goal is to get'r done in 20. How would you go about determining the best approach and what approach would you recommend ? If you don't think it is possible, then simply state that it can't be done.

[Tanada]

Easy, frack as much Natural Gas as you can and vent it directly to the atmosphere without burning it. This will rapidly spike Methane levels in the atmosphere and greatly enhance the Greenhouse Effect as rapidly as you can on a cost for effect basis.

[AgentR11]

Drill a few thousand 100 ft deep holes in the Russian tundra spaced a few miles apart. Place I Mark I Antique Russian Nuclear Bomb in each. Push button.

[dinopello]

Drill a few thousand 100 ft deep holes in the Russian tundra spaced a few miles apart. Place I Mark I Antique Russian Nuclear Bomb in each. Push button.

Is that another methane release solution ? I'd worry that there might be a lot of particulates released with all those explosions that might lead to cooling.

Methane release by fracking like Tanada suggests might be better but it does have a cost associated both in the fracking cost and opportunity cost of lost Nat Gas sales. As an engineer, I'd want to make sure the method was sound but I can't think of a way to try it on a small scale first. Maybe build a model or simulation?

[AgentR11]

I'd expect a few years of cooling from particulates; but the essence is simply to burn up carbon... lots and lots of carbon. Its not clay/sand dirt. Its organic material.

[radon1]

Synthetize and produce tons of easily dispersible cheap black dye and disperse it over the Arctic ocean's ice cap using helicopters/other transport over the summer. The ice cap will melt, water will be freed up to accumulate warmth. This will lead to warmer air over the Arctic.

Next, this will lead to warmer air masses moving from the Arctic into Siberia and Northern Europe, melting snow in there and reducing the aggregate albedo -> further warming. Next, the Siberian ice will melt and release the methane into atmosphere -> further warming due to the greenhouse effect.

Most of the cold that is brought into Northern Europe/Asia comes from the Arctic. Ice free Arctic would mean far more temperate climate for the Northern Europe, up to nearly resort type climate for places like Arkhangelsk.

[dinopello]

Ice free Arctic would mean far more temperate climate for the Northern Europe, up to nearly resort type climate for places like Arkhangelsk.

Maybe a Russian's notion of a resort !

Arkhangelsk might be a good place to be after a 6 degree rise. But still no sunshine in December.

So far, everyone seems confident that the goal can be accomplished. Does anyone think it isn't possible ?

[dohboi]

All you would need is a few plant generating all or any of the following: CFC-12, SF6, NF3

These are all over 10,000 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

(There are currently under 10,000 coal fired coal plants in the world: http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/freq ... questions/)

[KaiserJeep]

Engineering is the art of applied science. There is no proven way of changing climate. You should not be using the verb form of "engineer" for a scientific experiment. Furthermore, you should not be changing the climate, unless the human consequences of NOT changing the climate are worse.

Such as today in the world we are living in. Continuing to burn FF MAY change climate, and MAY NOT. Ceasing to burn FF's absolutely will kill most of the world's population, unless we figure out alternative sources for all the cheap energy and other things we use FF's for.

Some of us want to keep trying, and some murderous and genocidal crackpots with an unproven theory about AGW want to kill most of the World's population by stopping the burning of FF's.

[dohboi]

"murderous and genocidal crackpots"

Now there's the crackpot calling the kettle black!!

[dinopello]

Engineering is the art of applied science. There is no proven way of changing climate. You should not be using the verb form of "engineer" for a scientific experiment.

Engineering is art. How poetic. I'll put you in the category of not possible because there is no already proven way category.

The use of the verb engineer is entirely appropriate since I'm asking for what type of device or system your would engineer to raise the average temperature of a closed system. Or, I even asked how you would go about determining an approach. You would give up before starting - got it.

[Timo]

At the risk of appearing stupid, TWF is this thread supposed to accomplish?

[dinopello]

At the risk of appearing stupid, TWF is this thread supposed to accomplish?

I assume you meant WTF ?

A long time ago, I heard a politician claiming that human were not capable of affecting the climate of the planet. I thought it was a bold challenge. Anyway, I thought it might be another way to ask the AWG question and maybe get some creative thinking. Obviously, those people that think our current activity is already causing the effect asked for in the OP, might think this is too easy of a problem. I'm surprised nobody has said "just keep on the path we are on".

For those who are skeptical that what we are doing is affecting climate currently, I thought might have one of two basic responses

1) Either, like the politician just say it simply isn't possible no matter what we do or
2) Describe what approach they think actually would have an impact

[dohboi]

I would have said "just stay on the path we're on," except:

1) I assumed that you meant something like 'in an imaginary world where we weren't already doing this; and

2) We are actually on a path to heat the planet by much more than 6 degrees C.

[Timo]

Dino, yeah. WTF?????

[Timo]

I would have said "just stay on the path we're on," except:

1) I assumed that you meant something like 'in an imaginary world where we weren't already doing this; and

2) We are actually on a path to heat the planet by much more than 6 degrees C.

True! Sad, but true. # 2, anyway. EXCEPT, the premise at the beginning states that you have only a 20 year time period to accomplish the end of the world. BAU will probably be on the timeframe of 23 years before we see TEOTWAWKI.

Better luck next time.

[dohboi]

Timo, this may not have been dino's intent, but one reason for carrying out this mental exercise is to counter something that a certain breed of denialists tend to throw into the discussion at some point.

They will say, "Well, if we are warming the planet, so what and thank goodness. Our warming will prevent us from going into the next ice age."

As James Hansen points out, it would only take one factory producing one of the high Global Warming Potential, like the ones I listed, would be more than enough to execute that level of 'geo-engineering.'

" BAU will probably be on the timeframe of 23 years before we see TEOTWAWKI. Better luck next time."

[onlooker]

well a artificially induced clathrate gun event off the continental slope of eastern US could do the trick given how much methane is locked away there. It would involve artificially creating a landslide which could release sufficient methane to rapidly warm the planet. I could picture an explosion as the way to achieve this. See link below talking about the PETM and Permian–Triassic extinction events which some scientists believe were due to methane release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
But anyway it is pretty grim in so much as the cited events were extinction level events and we may be on the way to creating another at this time.

[careinke]

I'd expect a few years of cooling from particulates; but the essence is simply to burn up carbon... lots and lots of carbon. Its not clay/sand dirt. Its organic material.

You could place the nukes deep enough that the particulate expulsions would be minimal, yet still release a lot of methane.

[careinke]

We should do all of the above, always have redundancy. Oil wells burning in the arctic could also help. During desert storm, I was stationed in Riyadh. Our white patio furniture was covered in black oil soot everyday from the oil fires in Kuwait. The 500 mile smoke plume was also pretty impressive from the air. I would assume the soot would cover snow just as effectively as patio furniture in Riyadh.

Soo burning the oil wells in Alaska can work in two ways; 1. CO2 release. 2. more heat absorption from the black snow.