WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: debate on geo-engineering, "When civilian flights over the United States stopped in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the lack of sulphur-laden contrails led to a perceptible rise in temperature" supports it is proven that this technology cools the global climate, aerosol injection can have catastrophic effects on regional climate therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=Robock, § 1) aerosol injection (=poluting the stratosphere with sulphate) is a bad idea, "The U.S. government gives multibillion- dollar subsidies to the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries, and gives little support to alternative energy sources like solar and wind power that could contribute to a solution" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=Robock, 18) global warming is a political problem more than it is a technical problem, These could be "produced by burning high-sulphur aviation fuel" 2 possibi- lities "If aviation fuel were used in this way, and was 5% sulphur (between ten and 100 times today’s levels), it would require 1m flights a year to the middle of the stratosphere (between 15km and 25km up), assuming an average flight was four hours. Those flights alone would use up half as much fuel as civil aviation now consumes", no defeats the authority to say "No" to climate changing interventions is regulated, "the federal government is squashing attempts by states to mandate emissions reductions" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=Robock, 18) global warming is a political problem more than it is a technical problem, no defeats environmental costs are known, "Aerosol particles in the stratosphere serve as surfaces for chemical reactions that destroy ozone in the same way that water and nitric acid aerosols in polar stratospheric clouds produce the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole. For the next four decades or so, when the concentration of anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances will still be large enough in the stratosphere to produce this effect, additional aerosols from geoengineering would destroy even more ozone and increase damaging ultraviolet flux to Earth’s surface." supports aerosol injection increases ozon depletion, the points listed are confirmed points to be confirmed the responsibility if something goes wrong is regulated, the points listed are confirmed therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should perform chemical carbon capture, the points listed are not confirmed points to be confirmed financial costs are known, the points listed are confirmed points to be confirmed the responsibility if something goes wrong is regulated, it is proven that CO2 would be "lost for ever in space" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we should perform CO2 ejection into space when we don't have better alternatives, "A University of California, Berkeley, report released Thursday estimates that $2.5 trillion of California real estate is threatened by climate change. Real estate and insurance represent the largest sectors at risk from climate change in the state, according to the report. It found that the state has $4 trillion in real estate assets, of which $2.5 million are at risk from extreme weather events, sea level rise and wildfires. The projected annual price tag is $300 million to $3.9 billion over this century, depending on how the global temperature rise." supports impossible, since it would imply moving millions of people out of areas that would be flooded by rising sea levels, "environmentalists expect emissions- trading markets eventually to price the gas at about $50 a tonne" supports it can be expected that the process makes economical sense in the future, "History is littered with plans that went awry because too little was known about complex natural systems. As with irrigating Soviet cotton fields from the Aral Sea in Central Asia or introducing rabbits to Australia, modifying the climate will have both physical and biological consequences. Some of these will be unpredictable and some of them may be worse than the harm they were intended to treat." (Economist, 2008a) supports geo-engineering technologies "are full of 'unknown unknowns' " (24); applying them "would inevitably produce environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo" (Dean,2), if we want to "offset the rise in temperature expected by the middle of the century," then we have to add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=MH) we have to add "about 10m tonnes of finely divided sulphate particles to the stratosphere each year", if we should either reduce global temperatures or CO2 emissions, if there is a sense that governments are failing to reduce CO2 emissions, and if there are proposals for last- minute schemes, then we should discuss all available geo-scale climate engineering options and "subject them to critical appraisal by acknowledged experts from around the world" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=Launder & Thompson) we should discuss all available geo-scale climate engineering options and "subject them to critical appraisal by acknowledged experts from around the world", "If global warming is a political problem more than it is a technical problem, it follows that we don’t need geoengineering to solve it." therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU=Robock, p. 18) we don’t need geoengineering to solve the problem of global warming, no defeats the authority to say "No" to climate changing interventions is regulated