Slashdot Mirror
More Climate Scientists Now Support Geoengineering
ofcourseyouare writes "The Independent is a UK newspaper which has been pushing hard for cuts in CO2 emissions for years. It recently polled a group of 'the world's leading climate scientists,' revealing a 'growing support for geoengineering' in addition to cutting CO2 — not as a substitute. For example, Jim Lovelock, author of The Gaia Theory, comments: 'I disagree that geoengineering the climate is a dangerous distraction and I disagree that on no account should it ever be considered. I strongly agree that we now need a "plan B" where a geoengineering strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2 emissions.' Professor Kerry Emanuel of MIT said, 'While a geoengineering solution is bound to be less than desirable, the probability of getting global agreement on emissions reductions before it is too late is very small.'"
Why shouldn't geoengineering climate (dumping Fe in the India ocean, for example) be a substitute for cutting CO2? If it's cheaper and more effective, then only very stupid people would argue for...sorry, I think I answered my own question.
Great. Geoengineering. Us trying to "solve" a natural problem. Can you say "rabbits in Australia?" Everytime we try one of these "solutions" the result is trouble. I would be agreeable to letting the scientists play geoengineers if they agree to let us violently kill them WHEN it fucks things up even worse.
I guess we're going to learn how to terraform other planets by starting out with this one.
Because we have to.
How do you get every other country to agree to help?
If attempted this will likely turn out to be as stupid a decision as it was to introduce western predators to Australia in the hope that they would help fix the problem caused by introducing rats and rabbits. When it comes to nature and our ecosystem the rule of thumb ought to be "leave it the fuck alone".
schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms
that doesn't sound like a real great idea. Bonus points to the article for misspelling "fertilizing".
Hubris on a global scale. Who would have thought.
is to get rid of all the knee grows.
I prefer the idea of lime in the ocean over iron any day.
http://www.cquestrate.com/
It wouldn't possibly be the same climate scientists that would design and implement these mega billion dollar projects, would it?
Is cause by rap music. If we just send all of the nigger to the bottom of the sea, then all our problems will be solved, including taxation and natural disasters.
The oceans are the largest and least studied eco system on this planet, and if we're going to treat them like landfills for CO2, then we're going to get what we deserve.
These "climate" scientists are becoming obsessed and overwrought.
As the tidal wave of the Global Warming Church begins to slow, as more and more scientists, who ARE specialists in the climate, are beginning are beginning to backtrack and even outright dismiss AGW, those who remain loyal to the Church of Global Warming are beginning to panic.
If they were real scientists this would not happen, but the majority of supporters are "Activists" and uniformly, the rest are infected with the Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Want more? Here...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Yes, it's from an Evil Republican Denier, but I challenge you to read it instead of arrogantly dismissing it as the work of Exxon.
If you are really what most of you say you are, then you will check it out with open minds.
Who am I kidding, you folks are no different that the Church in Medieval times. Your crowing about Science and Evidence are mere distractions obscuring the real goal of the GW Church which is to increase government control over all aspects of our lives.
Highlander 2? Yeah, I tried to forget it too...
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Something tells me that if you do the math, cutting CO2 emissions will be way cheaper and safer than any of the options listed in the article. Seeding the oceans with iron, one of the more reasonable sounding ideas... OK, but how much iron would have to be mixed into the oceans to get rid of billions of tons of atmospheric carbon? At what cost?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I thought all of global warming was researchers trying to get a grant.
I mean, the way I usually go around getting people to give me deeply considered answers is to do a poll. How many of these scientists actually thought the question through? How many actually have enough expertise and experience to make their responses meaningful even if they had thought it through.
Seriously, is this science or fucking American Idol?!?
With any poll, you also have to consider who commissioned the poll, who implemented it, what the agendas are, etc. Because nobody does this shit for free, and there's always an angle.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The article was pretty short on details. First, I would hardly call 54% of 80 experts a statistically significant number. Also, who are these experts. I recall the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed some 2500 scientists and experts but when you actually looked at the make up of the group there were huge numbers of non scientists. Additionally, a good number of the scientists who were listed requested their names be removed from the list.
More importantly, when we try to "engineer" the atmosphere we are asking for trouble. We don't understand how all of this works and in fact, it may not be a problem at all. There is some evidence that suggests carbon FOLLOWS warming buy several hundreds of years. There seems to be a small but growing group of people that feel the sun's activities are far more responsible for warming and cooling that carbon.
Additionally, Methane and water vapor are far more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon.
Finally, I just read that temperatures peaked in '98 and have actually cooled by about a half degree or so. It seems that the earth has always warmed and cooled in cycles. I think it is far more effective to effect local solutions than to risk geo-engineering with processes that we don't understand and really can't control.
I see so many examples of mankind engineering something and then later finding out it was a mistake.
Who will decide what parts of the world will be cooled and how often? Sounds like the Kyoto protocol all over again
My reply to professor Kerry Emanuel, M.I.T.
Fine. You want to do geoengineering?
Get yourself on a probe launch to Mars and do it there. Leave the EARTH ALONE.
It is my belief that when we ON PURPOSE start trying to tune the atmosphere is where the real problems will begin.
People like this are so full of themselves, they are willing to risk the entire biosphere over crack pot, unproven ideas.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
So it was a few months before my wedding and I wanted to look good in the pictures (you have them for life, you know). So I vowed to start eating right and going to the gym. But then the gym turned out to be inconvenient and kind of expensive, so instead I decided I'd just wait 'til the last month and go on a crash diet. But unfortunately, the stupid crash diet didn't work out either (I ask you: who can eat cabbage soup for four weeks!?)
I'm sorry, what was this story about...?
I recently hire a well drilling company and average cost per 1m depth is 60 to 100. Assuming you need to drill at least 200m to get reasonably warm water, be prepare for 20'000. That's 1/4 of average family house price. Build you house in the woods and you have fuel for free.
Heat sinking the earth's core always sounded like a bad idea to me... I don't know, the whole thing of our magnetosphere being vital to all life here and whatnot, and shit.
Like it's the climate scientists who design and implement CO2 abatement policies? No, that's economists and politicians. Geoengineering is an ENGINEERING project. Scientists might tell engineers how much needs to happen, but they're not the ones who would design, build, or deploy the devices.
Besides, if you're insinuating that climate geoengineering is all a scientific conspiracy to get funding dollars, that's pretty lame. Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?
Let's all pretend we have anthropogenic climate change and can fix it by geoengineering. How much geoengineering? When do you stop?
Since the data on climate change need to be considered over several decades to determine the extent of the change, what's the indicator that you're done geoengineering and should stop before you overshoot and cause an ice age?
Do you do one project and wait 100 years to see if it gets cooler? 50 years?
Wouldn't 50 or 100 years be better spent finding a way to cope with a slightly warmer climate? People find ways to deal with adversity all the time (or at least we used to before society decided that life was supposed to be problem-free). We can't find some way to flourish in 2 or 4 degree warmer temperatures given 50 or 100 years to work on it?
is not what i'd really consider a scientist. i read the Gaia Theory a while ago. it's kind of hokey. more new ageish than new scientist, if you ask me.
"To stop the terrorists."
Plant more trees.
Sig this!
Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?
(Not that I think there's a conspiracy, but...)
Competitive market forces work even for invented problems. If I can solve a fake problem cheaper than you can, I can get more of the funding dollars.
This just goes to show that conspiracy theories can be as fluid as needed to accommodate data that conflicts with the starting axiom that a conspiracy exists...
400 out of multiple-thousands of scientists aren't sure that man made causes are creating global warming? Stop the presses! Skimming the article you link, it looks like it's short on facts :( You will be better received around these parts if you get off the soap box, stop yelling, and point to some of the evidence that global warming is not caused by us humans or that the theories that explain it as man-made don't hold water. (It's pretty much a given that the world is warming... the polar ice caps shrank 20% in the last 30 years.) If you are interested, I found this video quite informative, although potholer is very snarky sometimes.
Although, yes, it only takes one or two people to disagree with you and mod you troll or flamebait, like in this case. You're just expressing your opinion and get modded down which is bullshit.
Seriously. I'm addicted to 7-11 nachos. But I live near the beach and have to keep up my figure.
Please figure out how to get rid of the fat so I can consume more, and more, AND MORE!!!!
Financial engineering worked, right?
Most of us are employed and successful adults.
The so-called climate scientists interviewed in the article are mostly oceanographers, engineers, museum directors and authors. It looks like only about half are literally climate scientists/physicists.
We haven't been able to introduce animal and plant species properly to areas of the world or ourselves. And we should start playing with the climate?!
Theres nothing like an economic crash to reduce demand and production to indirectly reduce emissions.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
How does it go again? Denial, anger, bargaining,..?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Arctic ice is increasing over the last year. World temperatures are down for the last two years (peaked in 1998). The computer models used for predicting anthropogenic global warming are diverging from actual observations. The prudent approach is to continue to observe and do nothing.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Because we have done such a wonderful job in the past. Things like killing off the wolves in Yellowstone, and changing the hydrology of Florida. Yes, we are so good at "geoengineering" that this could not possibly go wrong.
*snirk* I crack myself up.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I only had enough to go in the subject field. Please read it, and not this comment's body.
I might be too late with my comment considering that the earth is cooling now, and perhaps not as hot as once though, but I think I have a solution:
I propose that the use of several large planet-sized magnets inside the orbit of Mercury would create a field to alter the incidence of sunspot activity. We could do that if the giant space mirrors or global stratosphere aerosols don't work. (Didn't I see that in the Animatrix?)
I subscribe to the proactionary principle, if it might work, try it. If it doesn't, stop. The precautionary principle is the result of our deep seeded fear of change, but life is change. All that said, I think modifying ourselves to fit our environment is easier and cheaper than the other way around. Whether its telecommuting instead of business trips, or something more controversial like bioengineering ourselves to run on energy sources we can more efficiently produce, or uploading and powering our brains off windfarms, the idea of modifying an entire planet strikes me as overly expensive for the desired outcome.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
According to the Stern report, the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is around 1% of global GDP (low hundreds of billions if I remember correctly). Have there been any estimates made regarding the cost of any geo-engineering solutions?
I must admit to some concerns with geo-engineering.
Firstly, why would geo-engineering be more likely to generate global agreement to act in a concerted fashion than any other way? (although, it may be looked upon more favourably by third world countries since the cost burden would presumably be primarily borne by first world countries)
Secondly, we don't exactly have a stellar record of successful interventions in previous attempts to facilitate large scale change in our environment (certainly here in Australia, the introduction of cane toads was a roaring success - NOT).
Thirdly, with so much money on offer for "big engineering" solutions, it would be FAR too likely to promote corrupt processes in the bidding processes around such projects (imagine KBR winning a no-bid 500 billion dollar project (which would inevitably overrun into the trillions) and then delivering 6 billion desk-fans to everyone on the planet - global warming? mitigated!)
While geo-engineering may be more politically palatable (we don't have to change our petro-chemically gluttonous ways), I am suspicious of solutions that basically hand the solution back to daddy.
In my opinion, we need to take steps to decrease our environmental footprint anyway. There are over 6 billion of us on the planet and if everyone in the third world had the same lifestyle as those of us in the first world, there would not be enough food on the planet (given the current methods of production) to sustain us let alone our impact in terms of CO2 emissions. As a species, we cannot keep traveling on our current trajectory.
Most the opposition argues that we didn't contribute to global warming because we are so insignificant - largely because they lost their previous arguments big time.
They have no right to oppose climate engineering on the grounds that it might cause problems when they argue humans couldn't have significantly contributed to the crisis.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'm a little confused. If we need to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere do get rid of all the CO2? Will there be any unintended consequents of removing all the CO2?
It's a bit late to decide not to affect the planet. We already have done so. If we can get everyone to cut their carbon use, and all plant trees, then this is geoengineering. If we decide not to do that, and carry on emitting carbon dioxide and other stuff, then that will be geoengineering too - the bad sort.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to distinguish between good and bad proposals. The solutions originally proposed for acid rain back in the 1970's - reducing exhaust gas temperatures and using scrubbers - would have resulted in us consuming more coal for the same energy production, and would probably have made things worse. In fact, the sulphur compounds are probably helping the cloud cover, so we might be in other trouble if we got rid of them too quickly. Making methanol biofuel from waste sugar cane seemed good back in the 1970's too.
Well, anyone can make mistakes. The scary thing about geoengineering is that we only get one stab at it. We can't even do a proper experiment with a control. Any changes we make will be hard to measure because there are natural random events, such as sunspots, weather patterns, volcanoes, and so forth. So we want a proposal that should be effective, have some measureable effect before going global-scale, and should be capable of being turned of smartly if we find it is not working.
Top of the proposals in may view, are the ships that spray seawater into the air. This could create cloud cover and rain, and absorb heat at sea level, and re-emit it at the top of the atmosphere where it may radiate into space. If it is not doing the right thing, then we can turn off the sprays, and everything is back where we started.
Number two would be adding iron salts to the sea. Iron is scarce in seawater, and the lack of iron throttles algae growth. A small amount of iron will produce a lot of algae, fixing carbon, and providing food for other sea creatures. This is all measurable. If we find we are doing the wrong thing, then we can't get the iron back out of the sea again, so we have to start small scale and work upwards.
Most of the other solutions in the article are a bit scary for me. There are many other smaller-scale proposals not mentioned that will not provide a global solution by themselves, but should give a cost effective contribution. Examples are capping old coal mines to store methane emissions, or generating fuels from bacteria to fix carbon. For completeness' sake, I add the virtuous proposal of getting people to use less energy, but that isn't happening nearly fast enough.
Yes, geoengineering is a bit scary. But, right now, it is a lot less scary than the geoengeneering we are doing right now by carrying on as we have always done.
These people and their models cannot even tell what the weather will be in 5 days but they feel confident that they can affect or even control the weather on a massive scale. Wow!!!
Just a quick thing on global warming. If we compress the history of our planet and its weather in 1 year, the records we have about weather comprise of less than a second of observations. Do you really want to draw conclusions out of that measly amount of information? ...?
Would anybody call this scientific method or just pulling something out of your
-Gio
that was actually a good link better would be: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2 and for the guy who clearly didnt read the article before posting (its a huge article...) with links to sources/blogs and official pages of scientists and lobby groups stating their opinions and their research and before people say what about the x i am not ignoring evidence, quite frankly the weather systems seem f*cked the last few years all over the globe... hows about, research and evidence over silly arguments, and its silly arguments that made this public debate in the first place.... sh*t im making silly arguments.... shoot the messenger
It is crazy how scientific community behaves like just any other group where scientific methods are trumped by polls and consensus. It is exactly this herd mentality that prevented the community to look outside string theory for the grand unified theory.
Folks like Garrett Lisi had to resort to virtually getting away from civilization to make progress their own radical new ideas.
what the hell is he talking about "before it's too late"???? before we get another shit hollywood movie about global warming? i realise the media blames every single natural event on global warming, but really it's not different to what was happening 20 years ago. I remeber 10 years ago being told we'd be out of oil by now and that global warming would be eating our babies. i smell yet another researcher looking for grant money.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Like it's the climate scientists who design and implement CO2 abatement policies? No, that's economists and politicians.
I hope the economists and politicians are are working with scientists on this. The IPCC has a great amount of input from scientists.
Geoengineering is an ENGINEERING project. Scientists might tell engineers how much needs to happen, but they're not the ones who would design, build, or deploy the devices.
Now you are quibbling over diction. There are no geoengineers. Just like in the start of the computeing era there were no computer engineers. The first computers were created by. . .SCIENTISTS. Feyman needed to crunch numbers for artillery and later particle trajectories. Von Neumann was the same. The scientists are just about the only people that understand the problem. They will have to be in on designing and implementing the solution.
Besides, if you're insinuating that climate geoengineering is all a scientific conspiracy to get funding dollars, that's pretty lame. Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?
I am just suggesting that you look at the bias in those surveyed. Most people who legitimately disagree with anthropogenic global warming don't call themselves climate scientists. They call themselves geologists, astrophysicists, statisticians, economists, and other scientists. They were excluded from the survey of "climate scientists".
So despite not understanding fully how the climate works, everything that affects it and how, they want to start fucking about with it trying to fix something that actually might not be broken in the first place?
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
The problem with curbing CO2 is that the strategy only works if, in fact, manmade CO2 is the sole source. Now, today, it may well be, but there are plenty of natural forces out there that can add significant and climate altering CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. What climate science teaches us, and this is unfortunate for environmentalists, is that the climate must be managed in the best interests of humanity and humanity first.
This is my sig.
That's the thing. Everyone looks at the rise in global temperatures and calls it bad, but if you live not on the coastlines, and in an area where your growing season is longer and you get better rainfall to match, then, a higher CO2 content is a good thing. When we talk about "saving the planet", we really mean to say, to preserve the current climate so that current real estate values remain the same, but economically speaking, if you are a guy in upstate PA who owns what could become beachfront property, or a major port, then, greenhouse gasses and rising sea levels are a boon.
This is my sig.
Human population exploded during a relatively benign period in earth's geologic history (19th and 20th centuries). Natural climate variation is usually not so gentle. What that means is, we have hundreds of millions of people living in places that will be destroyed, basically. Even New York City has had a catastrophic hurricane/storm surge strike almost once per century. Geoengineering could be used not only for global warming, but averting regional catastrophes like hurricane Katrina. I say, for now, simulate, simulate, simulate. Develop the means to divert solar radiation in a small region for example, that could be used to divert a hurricane or dampen its energy. This capability would be a prelude to reflecting the solar radiation that the polar ice SHOULD be reflecting (but since it has shrunk, is not, even acknowledging the last two years of colder temperatures). Develop an emergency plan, using existing resources to start. Btw, do people in America realize that the pine beetle infestation in British Columbia (and the Katmai Peninsula in Alaska), a symptom of the higher temperatures up there, means that 75% of the red pine up there will be dead by 2020? Can you imagine the firestorms that will result? The "let nature take its course" argument is moot, there are too many people and too much wealth in every corner of the globe to let disaster happen.
Iron fertilization is such an obviously good thing to test out it never ceases to amaze me how much traction stupid arguments against gradually expanded iron fertilization experiments get.
On the one hand you have folks who object to such expanded experiments by saying "We don't know what global iron fertilization will do to the environment!" Well, I know this will come as a shock to some of these so-called "scientists" but that's precisely why you run EXPERIMENTS.
On the other hand, you have folks who are "worried" that some of the carbon might end up creating a food chain out in the middle of huge ocean desert areas because.... well... who needs all those fish? And, by the way, what are we going to do about all the natural fisheries that are being depleted by overfishing?
Seastead this.
Is it wise to give time to people who were WRONG about global warming?
Isn't it like hiring the former head of Goldman Sachs to save USA's banking system??
I'd rather follow the advice of the people who were right from the beginning.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
The Indy is a good paper, but it is also a bit 'pop news'. Tell 'em what they want to hear, etc.
You're way too emotional and hostile to be taken seriously, especially given your list of "facts" none of which in many posts has any supporting information. I know this is /. but really.
When AGW is finally put to rest, you'll lose all funding, your job prospects will diminish to near nothing. I understand your position but your aggressive attitude won't save your career.
More to the point, who thought that James Lovelock was a 'climate scientist'? That Gaia thing seems like crackpottery to me, though I'd appreciate it if informed Slashdotters could prove me wrong by showing how rigorous, explanatory and falsifiable it is.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
You piece of shit. Clearly massive research funds will be endowed just fear and geoengineering as a buzzword if it gains traction in the media. You are entirely misrepresenting the aims of the people involved. Worst off, you can only do so by ruthlessly attacking someone who made a valid point.
Of course climate scientists support geoengineering... Big Climactic Science Projects means a high demand for their services and excellent prospects for continued employment.
"Geo-engineering" implies that the would-be engineer has a clue about what they're doing. This is more like geo-let's-see-what-happens.
We would rather put up clouds of sulfate aerosols (acid rain anyone?) or giant sunshades in orbit or any of these hare-brained schemes than work on ways to power down the carbon release.
It is madness, it is hubris in the extreme. We have no idea of the complete consequences - it is NOT a simple engineering equation. And who gets to decide?
I sure hope none of these grand delusional schemes ever get anywhere.
man-made global warming is bullshit.
How is the convention of spelling using "z" as opposed "s" for the "Z" sound dumbing things down? Please explain your nonsensical position.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Most of these people are not "climate scientists". Many are activists and science bureaucrats who haven't done any real science in decades. The best that can be said of them is that they are well-connected mathematicians, engineers and scientists with an opinion on Geoengineering. One of them is a lawyer.
For the rest, David Archer, Steven Sherwood, Frank Schwing and Andrew Gettleman are not too keen on the idea. Kevin Trenberth and LuAnne Thompson are dead-set against it.
Steven Ghan stands pretty much alone as a practicing geophysicist and climatologist in favour of geoengineering (as long as it is constrained to CO2 reduction).
Finally, it's notable that only half, 22 out of 44, of the respondents come out in favor of the idea.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
At the farm, I am re-engineering a natural fen in order to improve its efficiency. (In case there's an oil spill on the road or something, it is only 20 meters to the creek.) We bought a small piece of the great north woods, and we are trying to re-forest it a bit. I wish I could find some mule-skinners to pull the old wood out. My most extreme hubris would be slipping some exotic trees into a hemlock/red-cedar ecosystem. I'm engineering it to prevent transferring fungi or pathogens, otherwise presuming on the resilient nature of ...nature, to save us all from catastrophe.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Why not, instead, increase the size of the Earth's orbit by 20 miles? By placing the world a mere 20 miles further from the sun than it is now, we can decrease the amount of heat coming in by 47 megajoules per day, curbing global warming. This, of course, would be only a stopgap measure put into effect until CO2 emissions are brought back down to reasonable levels.
"More to the point, who thought that James Lovelock was a 'climate scientist'? That Gaia thing seems like crackpottery to me..."
James Lovelock has been called the the father of Earth Science, climate science is a subset of Earth science. The term Gaia is more or less interchangeable with the term Biosphere. The hippies picked up the idea and made Gaia into some sort of god that has feelings, this initially confused the hell out of many of his scientific peers (eg: gaia was initially critisied by Dawkins & Gould). Those who have a vested interest in fucking up the planet still encorage that mis-informed view and consequently the term has fallen into disrepute since the general population now see gaia as the God of the bush-bunnies rather than the glue that holds the Earth sciences together.
The term "climate scientist" was not invented when he gained his Phd. He was initially trained in medicine so it's no surprise that he proposes that problems with the Earth's biosphere be tackled the same way as a doctor treats a patient (patient = unique living system), "first do no harm". However, Lovelock is no Hippie, he has upset Greenpeace and other like minded political organisations for proposing nuclear reators as a short term (50-100yr) solution to AGW. In my book he is a genuine "giant" of the 20th century who's theories/ideas have allowed others to see further and have upset both sides of environmental politics at various times over the last four or five decades.
There are piles and piles of papers available that treat the biosphere as an oragisim (unique living system), eg: life makes it possible for methane and oxygen to exist together in atmosphere, plants and plankton consume C02 and produced the ALL the available oxygen currently in the atmosphere, limestone and peat are produced by life, islands are built from coral, rainforests create their own rain, etc, etc, etc. It's definitely not crackpottery, in fact the idea that the biosphere is a unique living system is now so entrenched in modern science that most papers don't even bother defining "biosphere".
BTW: In TFA (which I have not read), I believe he is not speaking as a climate scientist but as a "futurist", futurists are confined by their imagination not by practicalities (eg: Dyson).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
NASA will soon launch a satellite to directly monitor for the locations of ground level point sources of CO2. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/oco-20081112.html
I suggest a moratorium on all of the "lets 'STOP' Global Warming" hoopla and gather some meaningful data. Let's find out where this evil CO2 is coming from and develop programs and incentives to reduce the actual sources.
If U.S. autos are a huge source, there is data to support moving to something else. If the U.S. Electrical power industry is one of the major sources, there is additional emphasis to stop pi**ing away money on Tokamaks and get serious about developing truly net positive fusion.
If the problem is China's factories or power generation, well the Chinese can clean up their mess.
As an incentive, let's suppose Chinese factories and power generation is a large component of man-made emissions. Consuming nations should make a decision if they can produce the goods they purchase from this high emission region at lower emissions. If so, imports from high per item emission producers should be reduced in favor of local production in lower emission areas.
One last comment, just because it bothered me so.
I recently saw the remake of the classic Sci-Fi B movie "The day the Earth stood still". I was disturbed by the omission of an epilogue which described the results of the closing scenes of the movie.
"... and with the loss of electrical and other power sources, industry shutdown, and all that depended upon mechanization died with it. Within weeks Billions of the Earth's inhabitants were starving. The cities became hunter killer grounds as those who could, took from those unable to protect themselves.
Within months humanity had retreated to a Medieval life style, as disease and starvation continued to reduce the numbers of humanity to a tiny fraction of those alive on the day of landing.
The forests were denuded as those left alive sought fuel to guard against the cold of the Northern Latitudes. Coal once again became a primary fuel source. Recovered from the ground as it had been 400 years before, by children working until their early deaths."
Yeah, just what I want for MY children! (Sarcasm intended)
To those who thought the ending of that movie was nirvana, I have a suggestion. Pool you money, buy a small country, move there and institute your "no carbon emission" fantasy. After your gone we'll come around to reclaim the land if we feel like we need it.
I for one DO NOT want to see my childrens future (economic, educational, or standard of living) eviscerated to fulfill someone else desire to "fight Global Warming".
Instead of generating completely unrealistic Carbon caps and Carbon reduction targets, which in reality will simply become the next economic weapon (and a HUGE moneymaker for those trading in "carbon credits"). Let's get serious about fixing the problem.
We need a new, continuous, throttleable energy source and a new high energy density, safe liquid fuel of low or 0 carbon emission. I'd feel much better about my standard of living being decimated if the reduction was being spent to develop these things, than to "conserve our way to Carbon nirvana".
In case you haven't noticed, you can't conserve your way to prosperity.
Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Scientists think they can make predict climate through their dynamic models. It is reasonable to ask what they hope to accomplish through geoengineering? Is the Earth climate system controlable, from an optimal control standpoint with the single constrained variable CO2 partial pressure? What would be the goal of the geoengineering? Before they start the political onslaught perhaps proponents of this should answer the question.
an ill wind that blows no good
Well, if you destroy mangroves and build condos/apartments on the door steps of the ocean, then you cannot expect the houses to last 30 years.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Looking upwards, I see a mass amount of arguments in principle for and against geo-engineering. They either go "We should", or "We should not".
Isn't the real question "At what point?" If CO2 reduction and clean tech policies are implemented and data and projections a decade from now implies a rise in average temperature of 1C to 2050, then maybe there's less of a reason. If we wake up ten years into the future where the methane in Siberia has exploded and temperatures are rising by 5-6 degrees globally, then maybe there's more of a reason.
An ironic "What could possibly go wrong?" is something spoken by someone who lives a comfortable life in a comfortable house in a stable world, and who (by implication) is opposed to things that could provide unexpected negative surprises. If your house has been burnt down by sweeping fires, and your world is collapsing, it's a matter of "try or die". Having formulated a plan of potential things to "try" if that point is ever reached might be a wise precaution.
In the 70s there was serious talk about massive geo-engineering projects to stabilize the climate.
One of the largest projects proposed was to create seas in Africa. If the Congo, which carries some 1,200 cubic kilometers of water per year, was dammed at Stanley Canyon (about 1 mile wide), it would impound an enormous lake (the Congo Sea). The Ubangi, a tributary of the Congo, could then flow to the north-west, joining the Chari and flowing into Lake Chad, which would grow to enormous size (over 1 million square kilometers). This large lake (the Chad Sea) would approximately equal the combined areas of the Baltic Sea, White Sea, Black Sea, and Caspian Sea.
Another proposal was to create a Bering Strait dam which would increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by stopping or even reversing the present northward flow of colder Pacific water through the Bering Strait. The proposed dam would be 50 miles long and 150 feet high.
Also huge dams were proposed between Florida and Cuba and in the Tatarsk Strait (near Japan) to disrupt and deflect the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio Current, which would circulate warmer water to the north.
All of these proposals were presented as necessary to prevent the impending ice age. If these scientists had their way back then we'd be roasting right now. Now if we let these same people try their new plans now that the "consensus" has turned 180 degrees we'll probably be equally screwed a few decades later.
Wealth comes up because it's a proxy for freedom. The people demanding heavy government control over our lives have in some cases seized on global warming as an excuse for taking more power over us. It so happens that their proposed methods focus on confiscating and redistributing wealth, so the debate is superficially about money. Because of this attack on our freedom in the name of saving the planet/climate/polar bears, some of us have become skeptical (rightly or not) even of the scientific case that something must be done.
To carry the farming analogy further, did crop rotation take hold because some medieval Albertus Gore convinced the world's kings to force their farmers to do things his way?
Revive the Constitution.
No one has yet to mention asking the planet maker and sustainer for help. In fact, I wonder if anyone here is a Christian. There is a good reason for that. All of you are trying to fix the problem with this planet because you think the human race is stuck with it. We aren't. Christian's already know that God has promised to burn this planet and make a new one. Global warming will happen. And it will be much hotter than anyone's predictions. There is nothing you can do to save this planet. There is nothing you can do to save yourselves. God is planning to save the Christians from judgment (personal warming you might say, as opposed to global), only because a real Christian has had the humility to admit that they have sinned and offended their holy maker. Christians aren't perfect, they are forgiven. And they have promises of many things that render this whole "Save the Planet" discussion moot. I write this post knowing that most of you will dismiss this post as blind religious babble. I truly believe all of this and I am at peace because of it. I have no fear of any future event. I really do trust my God.
Yes, more and more scientists will support this because from the crumbles which fall off the plate in such projects you can live very well scientifically.
I for one welcome our new eco-imperialist overlords...
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
http://kruhm.org/2009/01/idiot-climate-scientists/
So we know exactly how to fix this? And we are become God. Woohoo! Wait ... and isn't that how we got into this purported mess?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The Law of Unintended Consequences can be seen all throughout our society.
Causes, From Wikipedia's citing of Robert Merton:
1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis)
2. Error (Incorrect analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)
Effects, from the same:
1. kudzu has become a major problem in the South Eastern United States since its introduction as a way of preventing erosion in earthworks. Kudzu has displaced native plants, and has effectively taken over significant portions of land.
2. Rent control leads in the long run to housing shortages, and drops in housing availability and quality. It may even lead to the creation of slum areas where owners permit rental property to run down until it becomes uninhabitable.
I used these examples from said article because I am feeling too lazy this morning to have to spend any more precious time fending off the "we're all gonna die!" crowd. They'll all flock to this article, with their degrees in Climate Science, no doubt, and proclaim that all we need to do is have faith in what they call consensus. That way, we can become tomorrow's laughingstock. No thanks - I think I'll sit this one out.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
I shouldn't have used the word "rights" in a logical or even ethical context because people think I'm referring to "unalienable rights."
You don't have a logical, intellectually honest, or ethical right to big contradictions such as saying humans couldn't have changed the environment while opposing attempts for humans to purposely change the environment (and over a much shorter span of time than the one your denying to boot!)
I don't want to limit people's "unalienable right" to be stupid.
Its not a simple "belief" and many of us find equating science to religious beliefs to be degrading and ignoring the huge successes of science.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Usually when there is a huge contraction of the human population due to some rapid calamity, the economy improves for the survivors. Just look at how the black death was instrumental in the birth of a middle class because the price of labor went up in Europe.
This is my sig.
Brr.. Freezing my f*#king ass off here.
How about USA just signs the Kyoto treaty and gets to work like the rest of the planet? Americans already consume 27% of the oil and form only 4% of the people. If they half their consumption, it will have a huge effect. Climate scientists have been so disreputed lately that I'd rather not let them do any geoengineering on a planet I have to live on. Let them do it on Mars or maybe Venus. If it works on Venus, then maybe.
Yes, I'm sure that will bring immense comfort to any person who has lost a son or daughter to a terminal illness, and had to reconcile that loss against "God's great plan" ?
And to all the millions of people that have died in religeous upheavals, holy wars, the Inquisition and every other means of killing that is done "in God's name".
It never, EVER, dawned on you that even if there IS a God, perhaps he doesn't have a plan for us, above "let them work it out for themselves, I've done my bit already" ?
What makes me laugh is that you say "God has promised to burn this planet and make a new one" ? Which chapter of the bible is that taken from, I seem to have missed that one during my 13 years of Catholic education ? Thankfully I have freed my mind of that trivial dogma along time ago, and now choose to live MY life for today ...
Because think about this ... if I'm right, I will have lived the most productive full life I could and enjoyed every second of it, even if there is nothing afterwards. You on the other hand choose to suffer every day in the hope of eternal salvation ... and if you're wrong, your life will have been wasted.
Please bear in mind that the first word of "blind faith" is blind ... and it really is better to keep your eyes open than shut in most situations.
Disproved last year. Of all the global warming gases CO2 is one of the "rarer" ones. Out of 100,000 molecules of air there are only 39 CO2 molecules. It takes FIVE YEARS of humans CURRENT CO2 output to raise it to 40. CO2 feeds plants. If AGW wackos succeed it is basically a suicide mission. Save the earth by starving the plants. Global temperatures are affected by Solar Activity. It has been low recently which is why the temps globally are the lowest they have been in 10 years. I know, NASA says they are higher. But Hanson, Al Gore's buddy, was caught cooking the books. He was carrying over August data into October. Of course the numbers look higher then. Geez. Stop the AGW fraud.
You don't have a /. journal entry or email
From this afternoons meta-mods - 6 out of 10 of you for me
Comment: Re:Don't take freedom for granted (Score 1) on 10:03 PM December 15th, 2008
by ScrewMaster on 10:03 PM December 15th, 2008 (#26128367)
Attached to: Wiretap Whistleblower, a Life in Limbo?
Comment: Re:What does it take with these people? (Score 1) on 07:07 PM November 18th, 2008
by ScrewMaster on 07:07 PM November 18th, 2008 (#25810573)
Attached to: Feds Can Locate Cell Phones Without Telcos
Comment: Re:Too many ads (Score 1) on 01:40 AM December 28th, 2008
by ScrewMaster on 01:40 AM December 28th, 2008 (#26247315)
Attached to: RIAA's Request For Appeal Denied In Thomas Case
Comment: Re:Professionally Signed (Score 1) on 10:27 AM November 29th, 2008
by ScrewMaster on 10:27 AM November 29th, 2008 (#25924983)
Attached to: Would You Add Easter Eggs To Software Produced At Work?
Comment: Re:Ummm... (Score 1) on 08:15 PM November 14th, 2008
by ScrewMaster on 08:15 PM November 14th, 2008 (#25767527)
Attached to: Internal Emails Released In Vista Capable Debacle
Comment: Re:Multiple lasers is the key (Score 1) on 11:03 AM November 15th, 2008
by ScrewMaster on 11:03 AM November 15th, 2008 (#25770761)
Attached to: Northrop Grumman Markets Weaponized Laser System
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
My brother is dead.
People do terrible things in lots of names. What is worse is when they do evil in God's name. Trust me, he likes it less than you do.
Yes, your "perhaps" has dawned on me. The book he wrote makes it clear that he is not done with this planet and its inhabitants.
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isaiah 66:22
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Genesis 9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
My life will not have been wasted if I can be used to keep just you from burning in Hell.
God does not require blind faith.
John 8:12
Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, "I am the Light of the world. He that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
Science to the rescue and if the fix is as good as the mojo they worked on the Global Financial Markets via the wonders of VaR, prepare to find a new home as the Mensa Crowd creates a problem where there is none!
Global Warming, brought to you by 3rd World Shiesters, Enemies of Western Economies and the Useful Idiots that work the Circus Midway known as Climate Change.
I'm all ears for the this-earth-is-busted-let's-build-a-new-one department.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Not going to lower myself to the level of sumdumass (711423) only to be beaten at his level.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1) This is a small number of scientists.
2) we already do this with air traffic.
Some days 75% of California is covered by contrails; which reflect light sun light back into space. Also, the amount of particulates in the air is also having an impact.
Without this global warming would be far worse right now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Record snowfall this year ... bring on the global warming."
Are you really that ignorant about what global worming is, or is you sig just flame bait?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wind blown dust from desert regions regularly fertilizes the oceans. So this is a natural process we can study and decide whether its effects are desirable before making a decision. It is not as unnatural as some correspondents have painted it. Iron filings seem the least likely ingredient though. Better to use iron rich rock, ground down and transported in bulk carriers to deposition sites in the oceans. Why use all that energy to refine the iron first . Just follow the natural process. It would still take significant amounts of energy to grind the rock and transport it which would have to be weighed into the equation to see the net benefit to CO2 levels.