Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate
merbs writes: Harvard has long been home to one of the fiercest advocates for climate engineering. This week, Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences published a research announcement headlined "Adjusting Earth's Thermostat, With Caution." That might read as oxymoronic — intentionally altering the planet's climate has rarely been considered a cautious enterprise — but it fairly accurately reflects the thrust of several new studies published by the Royal Society, all focused on exploring the controversial field of geoengineering.
We shouldn't be fooling around like this. It's obvious we don't understand, or are too corrupt and greedy to admit, that there's no problem. It's too many people's gravy train and I'm afraid the train has left the station and ain't coming back. You have to understand the difference between weather and climate. The fact that we had one warm month is weather. It is not a long term trend. It is one month. If you look at the larger picture, the last several winters have been extremely brutal (just look at what's happening to Buffalo), even enough that the deer harvest has been cut in half in my area due to high mortality to severe cold and large amounts of snow. This larger picture is climate - a longer trend - and as is obvious to anyone who has a window or a thermostat, it is definitely not warming. In fact I'd say it's doing the opposite. This could be the start of the next ice age we're living through in our very lifetimes. Sure feels like it. I'm not looking forward to my heating bills this winter if they are anything like last winter.
Might as well learn to be good at mopping.
We've been doing unintentional geoengineering for hundreds of years now, why would some intentional geoengineering be so bad?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Their own students have already started trying to manipulate global warming by suing their precious alma mater
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Can you engineer the climate for one country without negatively affecting another country's climate?
It's bringing back suppressed memories of Highlander 2!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Then we go into a Maunder Minimum and the skiing conditions will certainly improve.
Let's cut mile-wide channels into the continents for easy access to ocean water for desalination.
What could go wrong?
Go die
Bugger off wankers! We don't trust you.
I'd sooner trust Obama to follow the constitution.
It's fucking freezing outside. Please someone crank it up about 20 degrees (F). kthxbye.
It's not like we should be the ones to adapt to the environment or anything
Then if it works we'll have a bonus planet to live it. Win Win :)
- Things are the way they are because they're coded that way -
You know, science is best when it begins with a first step and not the last ones.
Sure. Let's engineer it. Just tell me what the optimum global mean temperature is, and I'll get right on it.
(It's no more difficult than any of the other projects that I've been assigned. "Invent a machine that can do X. At a lower cost than a worker in China."
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
Scientists Successfully Turn Down Earth's Thermostat
Global Temperatures Return to 1800's
Scientists Unable to Stop Global Cooling
Longest Winter Ever Recorded
Glaciers Advancing Around the World
Scientists Claim Earth Has Entered a New Ice Age
Fucking Scientists. Leave the damn thermostat alone.
"The planet will be fine. It's the people that are fucked."
~ George Carlin
I think it was called Snow Piercer. Do we really want to do this?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
We screwed up the ozone layer but are already well along the way to fix it. reference
We can create conditions favorable for earthquakes (fracking) and we can redirect lava flows. reference
The reason why people think climate can not be engineered is ignorance.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I think the idea that we are going to engineer the environment is crazy and dangerous. The fact is we don't HAVE to keep dumping CO2 into the air. We can dramatically shift our priorities and resources to finding alternative energy.
Granted, the economic incentives for clean energy aren't there right now, but is capitalism a suicide pact?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Countries (including US) are actively doing things to adjust the climate already. The sad part is we are already doing things to influence the climate that we have no clue how we are affecting things in the long term. We can't even come to a real conclusion on global warming and what is causing it... let alone figuring out what would happen if we try to correct it or adjust it purposefully. Even if we could adjust the climate temperature it could just be building us up for a much bigger natural adjustment to compensate.
If the climate were generally cooling, I'd agree with the thought we need to figure out how to stop or slow it.
But a warming climate? That has far more helpful benefits than downsides for life in general and biodiversity across the planet. You have only to look at the jungle compared to that arctic to realize that...
So please do NOT screw up whatever warming process is underway and move us to a cooling phase.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It seemed remarkably appropriate that this was the cookie at the bottom of the thread:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
they restart HAARP
His proposed experiment to help things is to emit some sulfuric acid into the atmosphere.
We work real had to burn non-sulfer coal to prevent this.
Perhaps we need to to only burn coal with just the right amount of sulfer?
Let's hope that Harvard teaches their engineers more restraint, balance, common-sense, concern for the common good, and other things that are positive for society and the world than they teach their MBAs.
Said the anonymous coward.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
I can't tell whether you're joking, or totally delusional.
I am convinced we will eventually build a sunshade, out at the first (inner) Earth-Sun Lagrange point. It won't help with ocean acidification, but it would make a global thermostat possible.
And, it will be good practice on fixing Venus.
I was just arguing with ultra conservative dumbfucks on Facebook who think climate change is a media conspiracy. Now that they're shrunk to like 3% of the population (and their own stupidity is hopefully killing them off) I think we have a level of support that could actually get this done. I think we have numbers from 10,000 years ago from trees. We have numbers from Mt St Helens. We have numbers from more recent volcanoes. We have simulations over years from nuclear weapons. We also have giant food reserves in bunkers. I say go for it.
What could possibly go wrong?
If the climate were generally warming, I'd agree with the thought we need to figure out how to stop or slow it.
But a cooling climate? That has far more helpful benefits than downsides for life in general and biodiversity across the planet. You have only to look at the jungle compared to that arctic to realize that...
So please do NOT screw up whatever warming process is underway and move us to a warming phase.
1. Since these scientists are a long way from sure about which projection/simulations they do are correct, wouldn't such Geo-engineering would be pointless?
2. The Geo-engineering we are talking about here "typically consists of dispersing sulfate aerosols - sulfuric acid - into the atmosphere". FFS that's like the way doctors treat people by pumping them full of drugs instead of treating the causes of disease. Have these scientists considered re-forestation, perhaps schemes to take back deserts, schemes to replant woods and forests across the EU and America etc where there were forests previously and looking at ways to stop the destruction of the ocean habitats.
3. Reducing CO2 emissions, isn't that Geo-engineering?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
18 years of no raising global temperatures, according to latest IPCC report. The same group who has never once made a correct prediction on future climate, but are now 98% certain on their predictions and have ignored the actual recent historical data.
Who is dumb now? People who look at facts or people like you who ignore them?
Okay, sure, lets do geo-engineering. How you say? Well, since we seem to be most concerned about global climate change due principally to CO2 emissions, would it not be in our best interests to simply start with CO2 removal? How much do we remove? How about the same amount we put in, plus 10%.
So lets get with the program, and build a massive CO2 offset facility. I would suggest something that contains a large amount of chlorophyll, preferably is self-sustaining, and has little or no negative environmental impact. I'm sure we can all think of something.
How about fucking TREES to start with.
Why not simply reforest the entire mid-west for starters. There's lost of unused military reserves which could surely be planted with LOTS of trees. Then hey, you know that desert in Nevada? Why not forest that too? And while we're at it, why not use solar power to extract CO2 into carbon sinks as well.
And if we're worried about rising sea levels, why not just take water OUT of the sea, and store it somewhere. I'm sure we could purify it, or use it to grow fish at the same time. We could easily install pumps that would say oh, replenish the Hoover dam, powered by renewables, this could be easily done.
So herewith, a repost: If we really are changing the climate, we're already geoengineering, so why not geoengineer the world back to normal? The biggest problem with doing so would be defining "normal". Russia and Canada like the world a little warmer, and are not going to appreciate our refreezing it.
Harvard scientists should watch The Matrix, specifically the scene in which Morpheus shows to Neo what happened when we changed the climate on Earth.
On a side note, can you imagine the United Nations agreeing to a planetary geoengineering plan? I can't.
Yes I can, actually. And they will. The question is, how many billions of people are going to die before this happens. Climate change is occurring, this is a hard fact. Most times in nature, change doesn't precipitate gradual linear effects, but rather a tipping point where things happen very rapidly. Sooner or later, we are going to cross an environmental tipping point, and you will see some sudden massive flooding or crop failure and a lot of people will die.Hopefully, not too many, but I suspect that it is going to be a lot. You might even see some wars of extermination fought over critical resources, such as potable water supplies.
The simple fact is, people cannot continue their current behavior. The way you live with a planetary population of 1 billion isn't the same when you have a planetary population of 10 billion. Either we will come to some global consensus about how we will fix this problem, or vast numbers of people will die and the population will be reduced to the point where change isn't needed. Nature will 'find its level' in any event.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You tweak a bit on the cooling side and get a repeat of the Maunder Minimum; then what?
Do you lose 25% of the population by starvation and freezing again as before?
We've been conducting a geo-engineering experiment by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere and, so far, it isn't going well.
What makes anyone believe that any further meddling with the climate would not have severe unintended consequences?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
If we can't even manage to do the easy things, like limiting human population growth, re-wilding, going after polluters and corporate liability-dumpers, switching away from fossil fuels, etc etc etc, what chance are we gonna have to to do **HARD** stuff, like modifying the weather??
Geoengineering, like CCS, is bullshit trotted out by pro-business 'conservatives' to claim that even if climate change *IS* humanity's fault, then we have an excuse to do nothing, because our grandkids will take care of the problem.
I wouldn't expect anything less from greedy, clueless, Me-generation conservatives, to be honest.
Can you imagine the lawsuits once you start monkeying with the climate?
Lose your crops because of drought/flood/frost? Lawsuit
Smash your car in a snowstorm? Lawsuit
Lose you boat in a storm? Lawsuit
Little Suzy's birthday party has to be canceled because of rain? Lawsuit
The article is specifically talking about Solar Radiation Management (SRM). This is adjusting temperature by reflecting more heat back to space, not by reducing CO2 emissions or sequestering CO2. So any other effects of increased CO2, such as ocean acidification, remain in place.
Capitialism is destroying the environment, it is a very stupid way to do things. It will be the end of us.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Shhhh..... no on likes it when someone says the emporer has no clothes....
"Capitalism is bad because it causes global warming" is a tech argument. Mos GAs would say something like "Global capitalism is a lousy system, global warming or not."
You are assuming that a warming climate is more helpful, but you could have a warm dry desert
Wrong. A warmer climate releases more moisture into the atmosphere from the oceans, which winds up on land. You always have a net positive effect on moisture...
This has also been noted in explanations of why snowfall amounts are up in some areas.
Deserts are the result of specific weather patterns not allowing moisture to flow to a region, but it always goes somewhere...
We also have proof of this simple fact, the medieval warm period was a fair amount warmer than we are now, and it was in fact a great time for agriculture.
Lastly, you are again ignoring jungles which are as hot as deserts... you seem to think that a great amount of heat automatically means desert which is very far from the truth.
But the most rise we are predicted to see anyway is about 2-3C.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Famous Last Words......
Tell these children to speak with Freeman Dyson before they go out and wet themselves.
I would like the temperature raised by 10ÂF. That would be most pleasant. Oh, wait, we're already making significant progress on that! Bravo! I like.
(If you want to complain about warming please move to Vermont or Maine, or any other northern region this time of year. We'll show you why warming is such a great idea!)
who gave us the Harvard MBA.
That hasn't worked out so well.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything. Rather, it's the regulatory framework around it that let Monsantu patent gene sequences and then sue farmers over them.
In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.
We've been conducting a geo-engineering experiment by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere and, so far, it isn't going well.
You're right. As an experiment to show CO2 causes warming it totally has sucked, because it shows in fact the opposite - over a decade without warming even as CO2 emissions continue to increase.
It's quite obvious at this point temperature changes have very little correlation to CO2 added to the atmosphere. Which was only logical one you realized what a tiny part of the atmosphere CO2 really is... so our percentage increases of it add little in terms of absolute amounts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Imagine you have a temperate zone with low-moderate precipitation. (Like the north american prairies, for example.)
Now suppose a warming climate modified the weather systems so that some of that area got monsoon rains (washing away all the topsoil, flooding the cities, etc.) and the other part became a desert. The overall precipitation could be slightly net-positive, but it's vastly worse from a usefulness-to-humans standpoint.
I'm sure you pedantic scamps have plenty of anecdotes to "disprove" any reasonable take on what average temperatures are ideal for creatures currently living on earth. Yours in particular (which I'd group under outliers) would be less of a concern today because we are not limited to technology of the 1600's.
All I'm trying to say is it would be least disruptive to life on earth if we didn't suddenly create (among other things) a situation in which costal areas (where something like 90% of earth's human population lives) became unstable to the point where it was preferable for those 6 billion people to want to move somewhere else instead of trying to make the new situation work where they are at.
In simpler terms, the most amicable situation for the vast majority of everything as it is now, is for temperature/climate to remain as it is now or change very very gradually. I'm ready more anecdotes to refute that, maybe attack grammar and spelling while you're at it /openingpandora'sbox.
We can't even explain the current "non-warming" period or its causes, what makes us think that man-handling the climate will do more good than harm? Also, who decides who gets the rain and who gets the drought? Vast conclusions from half-vast data..
Organization? You must be joking..
Look, for all I ca re the denier can still deny all they want even if in 100 year the average temperature increase is double to what is predicted. But boy, climate change need wide change, and if we screw up that one and enter a positive feedback loop which destroy whole ecosystem (ocean) or worsen the problem ebcause of some nebulous side effect we did not understand today, what do you do then ? In normal case I am not a luddite, but here, frankly I would say one would need to do stuff with far far more precaution than normally. Even then I would say precaution principle, if your remedy has the potential to kill/destroy/screw things up more than the problem, then don't remedy. And we are speaking of a huge potential for problem here.
For decades they've been boiling the ionosphere, seeding clouds, changing the weather and shaping where high pressure and low pressure systems move, ETC.. ETC... Stop with the disinformation to attempt covering up the most diabolically abominable acts on earth performed in secrecy but in broad daylight before the world audience you fucknuts. Aluminum is NOT benign in the environment. The fucking nanochips falling from the sky and embedding in festering sores is not a myth. You people are in fucking trouble. This whole world is in fucking trouble.
I'm sure that it's partially because Slashdot is a high-tech oriented site, but it seems like everyone skips to bizarre schemes before considering any of the really simple, really tame geoengineering options available. There doesn't need to be a fleet of aircraft spaying a mysterious chemical to increase Earth's albedo. There doesn't need to be a techniological marvel at the poles freezing CO2 out of the air. As with most things, simple is better.
Look at endeavors like the Marin Carbon Project (links to published peer-review articles within) which diverts waste, composts it, puts it on managed grasslands and improves plant productivity. Some fraction of the plant biomass gets stored below ground for decades or centuries. The dairy farmers don't need to buy/import as much feed which saves them money (and is an additional CO2 offset). Initial numbers look like 1 ton of CO2 per hectare over a 3 year period from one application.
I'm just not certain why we're looking so hard for lots of difficult solutions when there is so much low-hanging fruit. Some pretty simple changes in management practices (I'm looking at you, agriculture) can go a huge way to not only lowering CO2 emissions, but making land be significant net carbon sinks without compromising productivity.
Disclaimer: In the past I worked with one of the lab groups involved with the Marin Carbon Project.
What this will do is turn climate into a tactical weapon. Christ, they've done it with everything else.
... first nations in the north american continent used to be gifted at enigneering their environment (through Ãf©cobuage)... it just cannot work with our laws ... that make private owners do whatever they want.
I'll agree with that much. As to geo-engineering, well that's not working out to well so far.
"mother nature started this war. now she wants to quit because she is loosing."
It is what it is.
There's a great idea, plant more forests. I think a great place to start would be to subsidize the planting of forests instead of Corn. Instead of forested land being taxed you get a check from the government for every acre of forest. Make the payouts scale in some way relative to the amount of carbon that the land is likely sequestering. Factor in how well it is maintained, conducting regular burns to get rid of excess dead underbrush that is a forest fire risk.
Even if the Sun went into a new Maunder Minimum it wouldn't lead to a New Little Ice Age. There's far to much CO2 in the atmosphere now for that to happen. Scientists have analyzed the effect of a new Maunder Minimum and at most it would delay warming by 10 or 20 years.
3. Reducing CO2 emissions, isn't that Geo-engineering?
You've got the logic backwards. Raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 200+ years has been geoengineering. Reducing CO2 emissions would be cutting back on the geoengineering.
We do not know in detail how the climate system works. True, we have some understanding and we know what happens when we release CO2, methane, CFCs to the atmosphere. However, our models are never good enough to predict the outcome of specific effects we introduce to fix the other problems. Normally such things only work in Star Trek and you can run away in your ship if you fail (however they never fail in the series).
But who cares? Lets play Zauberlehrling (engl. sorcerer's apprentice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... (poem from J.W.v.Goethe) and f*** up the climate. They are from Harvard, therefore that is a really brilliant idea. Well, after reading the original article, they (he) is more into lets address this research topic. Therefore, we need funding. Hello? We need funding for this very important thing otherwise we are all doomed or must stop driven SUVs which means we are all doomed. Thanks.
Of course it would come to this.
This is precisely what was wrong with politicizing climate change. Eventually, someone would want to _do_ something. Because that is precisely the kind of mindset of a person who gets involved in politics.
Unfortunately, while we may explore what it is we can _do_, the repercussions of those actions are unknown. We do not understand our climate sufficiently to predict the impact of our actions.
Need proof of that? Ask for the assumptions made in the existing crop of climate models and the sensitivity to perturbations of those assumptions.
Fact: we can't predict the climate even when we don't mess with it, why do we think we can predict what will happen when we do?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Don't mess with the environment! Unless you're an ivory tower academic, then it's ok.
Just see the thousands of water and soil samples with Barium and Aluminum thousands of times higher than the U.S. Government says is required to take action.
Chemtrails, The Conspiracy that is true.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
The idea is derived from mass balance. Humid outside air entering the house displaces dryer conditioned air leaving the house. If you measure humidity inside and outside, calculate the partial pressure of H2O vapor inside and outside, measure the condensed liquid from your dehumidifier or A/C drain, voila, you know the rate of air exchange.
This is far from my own idea -- I read about it in a government report that came about in the "1st Energy Crisis" of the 70's and early 80's in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo followed by the Iranian Revolution. The usual way to measure air infiltration is with a blower door, but this way seems to require less fuss. The air infiltration number by this method, however, are "all over the place."
What went wrong? I don't have any incontrovertible "science" quantifying any of this, but I have some guesses, hypotheses to some people, beliefs to others. One, the amount of air infiltration varies with wind speed. The whole idea behind the blower door is you apply a pressure differential way in excess of the wind pressure on the day of the test to control for that. Two, and this is just an intuition, the single-compartment model must be wrong. The walls of your house act as a sink for moisture, one that is ambient temperature dependent and also has significant lags in exchanging moisture with the inside air. Three, family members add humidity by bathing, cooking, and simply breathing, but I tried to control for this by taking measurements when I was alone and limiting time of showers, etc.
I simply gave up on this method. The effect that air exchange will either increase the humidity level of the house or increase the water in your dehumidifier bucket is "science", yes, but it is a kind of incontrovertible hard science of mass balance. On the other hand, the effect I tried to measure appeared to be swamped by these effects for which I was unable to control. Furthermore, countering confirmation bias took a great effort of will -- you get these "runs" that "don't make sense" and then you get a run consistent with the model, and you go "aha, this makes sense, this is the infiltration level of this house." It is kind of like someone asks you "what kind of gas mileage you getting from your new car" and you report a favorable high reading from memory instead an average from your receipts and odometer reading showing a much lower number.
Yes, there is the contingent that dares, "Take my SUV away when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the steering wheel." But there is also a contingent that knows how much the global temperature has increased in the last century and why, and when challenged starts getting all huffy and starts using four-letter words.
...so let's innovate our way out of this mess.
So the "ice age is coming" of the 1970s becomes "global warming" in the 1980s/90s and has now morphed into "climate change" because the warming stopped 14-18 years ago. "Climate Change" is so nice because they won't have to change their scam's name every time the climate does something they don't expect .... like CHANGE! For goodness sake climate is always changing and humans for all their arrogance have very little to do with it. Urban heat island is proven and CO2 might have a 1 degree C change for each doubling.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO.
Why do I join with them and side with their predictions? While past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness it is a lot better record than the IPCC and their dozens of models of which none have been accurate. They are all based on CO2 controlling the climate and the other 2 are all cyclical natural cycles. I'll go with those who have a good track record at predicting future climate. Dr Libby is the most impressive as her prediction is 30+ years going and still accurate.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university (part of this includes his post on slashdot of all places)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Sometimes, I wonder if the percentage of slashdot population who really ought to be on medication is somewhat higher than the general population.
Now that the Republicans have a majority in Congress climate change will be abolished. It will not longer exist, Ted Cruz said so.
The military and aerospace contractors have already been "experimenting" with this for years now on a global scale. Many think that is what HAARP is for. Perhaps Harvard should do a little more investing into what others are doing around them before announcing they've discovered something.
It's definitely possible in the long run, but for the next thousand years or so it's probably going to be what itzly suggested -- a thawed swamp. The first thing that will happen is that the land will subduct, as can be seen already in many places, and is obvious from the density differences in ice and water. Then the depression will likely fill with water; Alaska has millions upon millions of lakes of various sizes due to just this phenomenon. Either way, you will also start to get decomposition in a place where that has been limited to an extremely thin surface layer for millennia. Even without considering possible issues with clathrates, the thawing of the Arctic will produce a shit-ton of CO2. This process of decomposition will probably eventually lead to a deeper layer of topsoil suitable for farming, however, this process takes a Very Long Time (as opposed to desertification which can be extremely rapid).
Your definition of a hothouse is also a bit off; consider that the poles will still have short growing seasons no matter what, although with sufficient daylight you can grow some seasonal plants to be quite large: take a look at some of the vegetables from the Alaska State Fair. Note the asterisks for the world records. It's also pretty stupid to extrapolate the prevailing weather conditions from one pole to another. I sincerely doubt that the Interior regions of either Siberia or North America will have much change. Being able to grow tropical plants does not in any way imply a tropical climate, nor a tropical growing season.
100 million years ago, and 100 million years from today, Siberia might be the garden belt of the world. It's still going to be a cold, dark, frozen hell in the winter, and more importantly we don't get to pick what time we're inhabiting the world in. For this century and many to come, the Arctic will not be at all suitable for farming, especially in the sense of being a replacement for existing farming regions damaged by climate change. For a visual demonstration of this, I present this map of permafrost extent. Everything shaded blue is bad news for humanity.
You're right. We absolutely shouldn't mess with the climate -- CO2 emissions are dangerous and should be stopped.
Hoist on your own petard there bud.
Aren't we glad the scientists of the '70s were not followed blindly? http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Is that 10 or 20 years after the 20 years we just had for no explainable reason?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
There are plenty of reasons why the past decade+ has had a lower rate of temperature rise than expected. Among them are the current solar cycle was lower than expected, there have been some relatively small but regular volcanic eruptions putting aerosols in the atmosphere, aerosols from industrialization in SE Asia have suppressed temperatures somewhat, the PDO has been in a negative phase, La Nina's have dominated over El Nino's. Put those and some other things together and you get a lower rate of temperature rise. The oceans where over 93% of the heat goes have continued to heat up.
That post nails the "debate".
We shouldn't be fooling around like this.
I suppose you feel it's better that we continue to fool around blindly so long as money can be made in the process... lets let the invisible hand fix it right?
Or even better, lets make it worse so that we can access the Antarctic and Arctic sources of oil faster. The military doesn't deny it, and are making strategies that consider it, because our enemies don't deny it either. And when you look at the actions of the oil companies in these regions, they're taking advantage of it too. There's about to be a veritable gold rush, and it can't happen so long as there's so much ice.
It's obvious we don't understand, or are too corrupt and greedy to admit, that there's no problem.
We are too corrupt and greedy to admit that there is a problem. A lot of money is on the line if we do something about it. So if you want to make money... everything is fine right? The invisible hand fixes it, and if not, then God is punishing us for permitting gay marriage.
You have to understand the difference between weather and climate. The fact that we had one warm month is weather. It is not a long term trend. It is one month.
Your next statement is kinda funny, having read this one. I guess we can't use anecdotes, but by-golly you can. In any case, cold months are also not indicative a long term trend. It's just weather. But, when you combine the data from all over the world, and not just one location that is hit by polar vortexes thrown from Canada, the trend becomes apparent. That is where the climate change data comes from.
Of course, I'm wasting my time.
We tried that but the banks said they preferred coal to nuclear.
Environmentalists had fuckall say in anything in the 1980s. If they really had the political power you suggest they did then we would have sorted out this climate change "debate" in the 1980s as well.
Funny how you went from something like "there is no warming" to something like "but warming is good!"
I await the next instalment.
Genetically Modified Weather.
In 20 years they will have to double the dose of chemtrails in the atmosphere to keep it working.
And, then they will add to your utility bill a tax for breathing the genetically modified air which spilled over into your space because an atmospheric farmer drove by your property and spilled his GMA (genetically modified air) on your property.
And, then you will have to contend with super-bad-weather that occurs as a result of GMW.
Many of the plans to engineer global cooling to reverse the effects of global warming involve partially shading the planet. This could have very bad unintended consequences because we need the light for plants. The problem with global warming isn't that we get too much sunlight: the problem is that the greenhouse gases trap the infrared radiation that we need to shed. Here is a solution to that and another problem. The other problem is that during the day, solar panels lose efficiency because they get hot. If solar panels were mounted onto a heat sink that conducts heat away from the cells and stores that heat, it would help keep the solar cells cooler and they would operate more efficiently. When the sun sets, the cells could swing away from he heat sink exposing a very dark surface on the heat sink. That would enhance the radiation of infrared light from the heat sink so that the heat sink would cool. Even though some of the infrared light would still be blocked by greenhouse gasses, more heat would be shed because of the efficiency of black body radiation, and because the radiation can be focused straight up minimizing the thickness of atmosphere it has to penetrate to escape Earth. Alternatively, large swaths of the earth's under-productive surfaces can be covered by heat sinks that have a reflective coating on one side and a black surface on the other. During the day it reflects light back into space and at night it flips around exposing its dark surface to space so it can radiate heat back towards space. This would also create jobs for people to build, install, and maintain the radiators.
The exact compounds geoengineers are talking about spraying in the atmosphere (aluminum, barium, and strontium) are currently being sprayed in vast quantities under black projects. This claim is not speculation, but based on precipitation and soil analysis. These are toxic compounds and the introduction of "geoengineering" a way of selling the public on these weather warfare programs as though it is good for us. They alter the electrical properties of the atmosphere for increased absorption of energy from the HAARP (among other) antenna arrays for the purpose of heating isolated pockets in the atmosphere and thereby altering the flow, duration, and intensity of weather events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
Instead of engineering a bed to automatically clean up our filth, we could stop shitting in it to begin with.
Neither, I have actually researched the topic - aside from reading this one article - have you? I am an engineer with a background in robotics, mechanics, and electronics. There is a great deal of science that is not even touched on in our university system as it has been sequestered by the security state since it's inception after World War II under the premise of national security. We are only told half the story in our educational system, the half that does not endanger the agenda of TPTB.
It is time to examine Harvard idiots' skulls for any possible signs of brains left in them. I bet they don't have anything left
otherwise they wouldn't be recommending doing moronic things like altering a chaotic dynamic system with unpredictable
outcomes, a system nobody understands no matter what bullshit they claim, a system the whole fucking planet depends on.
Just remember to get buy-in from ALL stakeholders, first!
(good luck with that).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No, you stated this:
Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?
Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.
Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.
I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.
So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".
Past experienc
So will Jane stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or will Jane stop citing Llovel et al. 2014, which depends on the globe warming? Or will he simply chug along without acknowledging this contradiction?
Will Jane ever support his accusation about GRACE with a link to whichever WUWT article he thinks supports his accusation? Or will he simply keep making that accusation with no evidence whatsoever?
Completely backwards, as usual. In reality, Jane didn't notice that his electrical heating power halved when the enclosing shell was added, because Jane counted radiative power twice.
Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.
Jane's never adequately explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
I've had to deal with innumerable assaults by rude people who don't understand the physics, and then accuse me of being rude and insulting without evidence. Somehow, I've managed to avoid accusing them of being "complete and utter idiots" who are brain dead and hate themselves and everything else and go far beyond Nazism and want to murder people.
Actually, Jane's claiming that Mr. Postma understands the physics of the problem better than me, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, th
Often times the problem is the US sanctioning countries or forcing them to agree to ridiculous debts. This has historically been the greatest problem with non-free market systems.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Once again, I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.
And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?
Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye
Oops, 4 months ago. Still not a couple of years.