engineered by the global-warming fanatics themselves

[Peter O'Donnell]

DAC, you could not be more wrong -- skeptics are well aware of the potential for human interference to upset the climatic balance. Our position all along has been that the MAGNITUDE of the postulated AGW effect is too small to merit the political and economic dislocation of the Kyoto process. We do not deny that there is a small impact on climate, this is more the province of politically motivated people who have latched onto the scientific skeptics and taken "small modification" to mean "no modification." Of course, there is a small difference. But the AGW lobby virtually asked for this response by over-dramatizing their claims in the first place.

Meanwhile, nobody in the scientific skeptic community doubts the possible large impacts of some of the engineering schemes being proposed. Deflection of sunlight away from the earth is the very heart of the Milankovitch theory (it happens on long time scales for natural reasons) and so we are very concerned about any suggestions to monkey around with the delicate global climate machine, it would basically be like pouring oil into the gas tank.

Nobody needs to educate us about the risks of these crazy schemes, but the political argument comes first -- we need to be clear about the real risks of the crazy economic schemes that are already well underway. These future engineering plans, we can worry about if they actually get onto the drawing boards and into the planning stages.

At some point, it may be necessary for a group of concerned citizens in all countries to form a political association that would seek to restore sanity to public governance, because organized science has clearly lost its marbles and threatens daily in dozens of different crazy neo-Marxist schemes to put an end to western civilization. We can assume that the Islamic world and other competitors will shrug this off and take over the ruins of our countries when our scientists achieve their deranged goals for our future.

I wish I could say that I was using some sort of dramatic license here, but I honestly believe that our academic establishment has collectively lost its mind and needs to be "put away" for the survival of our western nations. Otherwise, there are so many different crazy schemes on the table, any of them alone could be our demise; three or four of them taken together will just speed up the destruction.

[DA_Champion]

DAC, you could not be more wrong -- skeptics are well aware of the potential for human interference to upset the climatic balance. Our position all along has been that the MAGNITUDE of the postulated AGW effect is too small to merit the political and economic dislocation of the Kyoto process. We do not deny that there is a small impact on climate, this is more the province of politically motivated people who have latched onto the scientific skeptics and taken "small modification" to mean "no modification." Of course, there is a small difference. But the AGW lobby virtually asked for this response by over-dramatizing their claims in the first place.

Meanwhile, nobody in the scientific skeptic community doubts the possible large impacts of some of the engineering schemes being proposed. Deflection of sunlight away from the earth is the very heart of the Milankovitch theory (it happens on long time scales for natural reasons) and so we are very concerned about any suggestions to monkey around with the delicate global climate machine, it would basically be like pouring oil into the gas tank.

Nobody needs to educate us about the risks of these crazy schemes, but the political argument comes first -- we need to be clear about the real risks of the crazy economic schemes that are already well underway. These future engineering plans, we can worry about if they actually get onto the drawing boards and into the planning stages.

At some point, it may be necessary for a group of concerned citizens in all countries to form a political association that would seek to restore sanity to public governance, because organized science has clearly lost its marbles and threatens daily in dozens of different crazy neo-Marxist schemes to put an end to western civilization. We can assume that the Islamic world and other competitors will shrug this off and take over the ruins of our countries when our scientists achieve their deranged goals for our future.

I wish I could say that I was using some sort of dramatic license here, but I honestly believe that our academic establishment has collectively lost its mind and needs to be "put away" for the survival of our western nations. Otherwise, there are so many different crazy schemes on the table, any of them alone could be our demise; three or four of them taken together will just speed up the destruction.

Peter,

We've used a different idea of what it means to be a skeptic. I too oppose Kyoto, and I guess that makes me a skeptic in some sense. I think the definition I was using is more correct, in a hyperbolic sense, with respect to some of the commentary posted on FD. Yours is probably more correct within the context of policy debate as it really happens out there.

Personally I'm very afraid of some of these geoengineering schemes. The advantage of Kyoto's massiveness is that it can't happen unless everyone's on board. Dumping iron filings into the ocean, on the other hand, can be done by one billionaire on his own dime thinking he's on a crusade for a good. That also sounds much less reversible than CO2 emissions (which have a half-life of 80 years).

I'm not sure what you mean by organized science. The only organized science anywhere on this plane is the relatively conservative IPCC. A lot of these geoengineering ideas are not hard to think up and can be done with only a few scientists, a few engineers, and a single billionaire.

[Cod Father]

Whee! More terra-forming experiments!

More water vapour in the atmosphere means more clouds, more like a greenhouse around here guys, more rain. Hey! maybe if they put the cloud ships in the right spots they could make it rain in BC and the Prairies at the right time of year.

Western Canada rules again!

[Eddy]

Sometimes, it seems, people are just too smart for their own good. I've already got several of these scrubbers in my back yard - they're called Trees.
Not to mention that most of these ideas do little for the other CO2 problem - that of ocean acidification.

Removing CO2 from the air takes care of that problem automatically. Naturally it will take a few decades.

At last, man-made climate change is a threat - engineered by the global-warming fanatics themselves

From the perspective of the anti-AGW camp, it is impossible as a matter of principle for humans to affect the environment, thus they are hypocritical for worrying of these geoengineering schemes.

Nutz

That's how people often respond when they see something new.

The fact is we've been engaging in geoengineering for hundreds of years, pumping gases into the atmosphere, dumping our garbage and waste everywhere, conducting nuclear waste, et cetera. We have two choices:

1) We can ignore these problems, and then eventually collapse as a civlization.
2) We can change our behavior.
3) We can try and compensate for our bad behavior using some of these schemes.

It's not all that different in principle from forcing logging companies to plant trees. Does that government regulation bother you?

I don't think anti-AGW believe uniformly that it is impossible as a matter of principle for humans to affect the environment, unless 'environment' has a very specific meaning. Anti-AGW people, at least the ones I know, are skeptical about what is usually presented as demonstrating that people are causing global warming; they certainly understand that human activity can cause extinctions, pollution, collapse of fish stocks, etc. As Dr Plimer said in his book, the same people who now claim they can reverse global warming are the ones who caused the greatest environmental degradation in Australia.

[Eddy]

sorry, I didn't see the second page.

[styky]

Engineer the Climate?

Should the United States and other governments start supporting climate engineers’ research?

In my Findings column, I note the growing support for research into climate engineering, even among scientists who are skeptical that it will work. Although some people remain opposed — and warn that talk of climate modification is a dangerous distraction from cutting emissions — others say that we need to at least consider back-up plans if political leaders fail to limit carbon emissions, or if global warming accelerates unexpectedly in the near future.

On Friday the Copenhagen Consensus Center released the first of several reports it commissioned to answer this question: If the global community were to spend $250 billion over the next decade to diminish the adverse effects of climate change, what would be the best way to spend the money? The first report recommended spending $750 million per year on climate engineering, which currently gets little support from the U.S. or other governments (particularly when compared with the budgets for alternative energy and other programs dealing with climate change). The potential benefits of climate engineering are so large, the report concludes, that they place “the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who would prevent such research.”

Where exactly should the research money go and how much good would it do? Here there was disagreement among the experts consulted by the Danish think tank. (John Tierney, NYT) <a href=http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/climate-engineering/>more</a>

[free_life2]

They use to dug holes and then have other teams fill the holes in to justify their existence ......now they want to build ships towering to the heavens. How we have advanced!

[MikeNB]

Doesn't the Bible refer to the seas turning to red (blood)?

[styky]

These people are certifiable


August 30, 2009
Man-made volcanoes may cool Earth
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 814912.ece
THE Royal Society is backing research into simulated volcanic eruptions, spraying millions of tons of dust into the air, in an attempt to stave off climate change.

The society will this week call for a global programme of studies into geo-engineering — the manipulation of the Earth’s climate to counteract global warming — as the world struggles to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It will suggest in a report that pouring sulphur-based particles into the upper atmosphere could be one of the few options available to humanity to keep the world cool.

The intervention by the Royal Society comes amid tension ahead of the United Nations-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen in December to agree global cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. Preliminary discussions have gone so badly that many scientists believe geo-engineering will be needed as a “plan B”.

Ken Caldeira, an earth scientist at Stanford University, California, and a member of a Royal Society working group on geo-engineering, said dust sprayed into the stratosphere in volcanic eruptions was known to cool the Earth by reflecting light back into space.

“If I had a dollar for geo-engineering research I would put 90 cents of it into stratospheric aerosols and 10 cents into everything else,” said Caldeira.

The interest in so-called aerosols is linked to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, the second largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century. The explosion blasted up to 20m tons of tiny sulphur particles into the air, cooling the planet by about 0.5C before they fell back to earth.

The Royal Society is Britain’s premier science institution and its decision to take geo-engineering seriously is a measure of the desperation felt by scientists about climate change.

Brian Launder, a professor at Manchester University, who is also on the working group, recently said that without CO2 reductions or geo-engineering “civilisation as we know it will end within our grandchildren’s lifetime”. “The only rational scheme is to reduce the sunlight reaching Earth and to reflect back more of it,” he said.

The world’s population generates the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 a year, a figure which is projected to reach 60-70 billion tons by 2030 on current trends.

Scientists warn that the planet could warm by 5C by 2100 and say emissions must fall to 20 billion tons a year by 2050 if a disaster is to be averted.

However, many researchers and policymakers regard this target as impossible.

The Royal Society report is expected to draw partly on research by Tim Lenton, professor of earth sciences at the University of East Anglia, who has just completed the first big comparison of different forms of geo-engineering.

“We estimate that 1.5-5m tons of sulphate particles could be released [artificially] into the stratosphere each year on a recurring basis,” said Lenton.

“This is quite a small amount, which makes it potentially economically viable, but it could reduce global temperature rise by up to 2C.”

The study investigates several other proposals for geo-engineering, dividing them into two broad approaches. One approach involves reducing the sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface — a premise that lies behind both aerosol release and the construction of mirrors in space.

Lenton regards the latter idea as “science fiction”, pointing out that any space sunshade would need a surface area of 1.8m square miles to be effective.

Another suggestion for cutting the light reaching the Earth is cloud-whitening, where salt water is sprayed into the air from thousands of ships, producing brighter clouds.

However, the Met Office has attacked this idea in its submission to the Royal Society, warning that it could cut rainfall in areas such as the Amazon and Africa.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “If humanity starts messing with the world’s cloud systems it is bound to have major side effects, some of which will be dangerous.”

The other main approach to geo-engineering is to try to accelerate the rate at which CO2 is removed from the air by plants and ocean plankton, or through chemicals.

This is the basis of ideas such as ocean fertilisation, where nutrients such as iron are added to water to promote plankton growth. Plankton absorb CO2 as they grow and carry it down to the seabed when they die.

Such techniques would have relatively few adverse side effects but the disadvantage, the report will say, is that they would take far too long to make significant cuts in atmospheric CO2.

The same criticism applies to the idea of using giant artificial filters driven by nuclear power that chemically strip CO2 from the air.

John Shepherd, professor of earth system science at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, who chaired the Royal Society working party, is expected to warn of other problems. Any measures that are taken may have to be kept going for decades or even centuries.

Met Office research has suggested that if techniques such as sulphate aerosols were to be suddenly discontinued the Earth could experience a disastrous warming surge.

[styky]

Engineering Earth 'is feasible'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8231387.stm
Planet Earth from space (SPL)
Reducing carbon emissions remains the prime solution, the authors write

A UK Royal Society study has concluded that many engineering proposals to reduce the impact of climate change are "technically possible".

Such approaches could be effective, the authors said in their report.

But they also stressed that the potential of geo-engineering should not divert governments away from their efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Such engineering projects could either remove carbon dioxide or reflect the Sun's rays away from the planet.

Suggestions range from having giant mirrors in space, to erecting giant CO2 scrubbers that would "clean up" the air.

Ambitious as these schemes seem, the report concluded that many of them potentially had merit, and research into them should be pursued.

The authors stated, however, that some of the technology was barely formed and there were "major uncertainties regarding its effectiveness, costs and environmental impacts".

One of the technologies considered "too risky" was pouring iron filings into the ocean to grow algae which, the authors said, could cause "substantial damage" to marine life and freshwater, estuary and coastal ecosystems.

Buying time

The study stressed that engineering approaches would only have a limited impact, and that efforts should continue to be focused on reducing CO2 emissions.

"(Governments) should make increased efforts toward mitigating and adapting to climate change and in particular agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter," the authors wrote.

But, they continued, there should be "further research and development" into geo-engineering options "to investigate whether low-risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century".
Wind-powered yacht (J. McNeill)
Injecting sea salt into the clouds could cool the planet

Of the two basic geo-engineering approaches, the report concluded that those involving the removal of carbon dioxide were preferable, as they effectively return the climate system closer to its pre-industrial state.

But the authors found that many of these options were currently too expensive to implement widely.

This included "carbon capture and storage" methods, which require CO2 be captured directly from power plants and stored under the Earth's surface.

Current proposed methods also work very slowly, taking many decades to remove enough carbon dioxide to significantly reduce the rate of temperature rise.

Of the carbon removal techniques assessed, three were considered to have most potential:

1. CO2 capture from ambient air: This would be the preferred method, as it effectively reverses the cause of climate change.

2. Enhanced weathering: This aims to enhance natural reactions of CO2 from the air with rocks and minerals. It was identified as a prospective longer-term option.

3. Land use and afforestation: The report found that land-use management could and should play a small but significant role in reducing the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.



So-called solar radiation management methods do not take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and, according to some climate models, may be ineffective in altering shifts in rainfall patterns and storms, the report said.

Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change.
Professor John Shepherd, University of Southampton

But the authors said that the door should not be shut to the approach, which could be a faster way to reduce the rate of increase in global temperatures.

Some suggestions include: a giant mirror on the Moon; a space parasol made of superfine aluminium mesh; and a swarm of 10 trillion small mirrors launched into space one million at a time every minute for the next 30 years.

The study also said that many of these approaches had huge logistical demands, and it could take several decades for them to be implemented.

But if temperatures rose to such a level where more rapid action needed to be taken, three techniques were considered to have most potential:

1. Stratospheric aerosols: Previous volcanic eruptions have effectively provided case studies of the potential effectiveness of this method.

2. Space-based methods: These were considered to be a potential technique for long-term use, but only if major problems of implementation and maintenance could be solved.

3. Cloud albedo approaches: These include "cloud ships" which would send sea water into the clouds to make them more reflective.

The report also highlighted an inadequate international legal framework for cross border projects.
Trees
Afforestation could play a small role in reducing atmospheric CO2

"The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geo-engineering may be to social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance rather than scientific issues," it pointed out.

The authors urged an appropriate international body, such as the UN Commission for Sustainable Development, to establish a method for developing treaties to determine who would be responsible for research that might have global risks and benefits.

Professor John Shepherd, a researcher from the University of Southampton, chaired the Royal Society's geo-engineering study.

He said: "It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions, we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future.

"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."

[CdnRepublican]

Next engineering the Sun.

Little fascist minds playing god......

[styky]

Sep 1, 2009 08:30 PM
Is geoengineering humanity's last hope to avoid catastrophic global warming?
By David Biello in 60-Second Science Blog
Do you really want to start messing with the atmosphere? If not, then stop emitting so much CO2. Or so argues the U.K.-based Royal Society, the same people who brought you Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking. A new report by the Society analyzes so-called geoengineering—"the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment," or consciously tweaking Earth's climate in an attempt to stave off global warming—and finds that it is feasible and worth studying carefully, but probably not something we want to get involved in.

Artificial volcanoes, mirrors in space or other climate-altering schemes might be the last, best hope for mankind if we don't get started reducing greenhouse gas emissions pronto—specifically a 50 percent reduction (at minimum) in global emissions from 1990 levels by mid-century, according to a 12-member panel convened by the Society. "Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change," said report chair and climate modeler John Shepherd of the University of Southampton in a prepared statement. "Used irresponsibly or without regard for possible side effects, geoengineering could have catastrophic consequences similar to those of climate change itself."

After a year spent examining various ideas, the Society panel split geoengineering into two camps—dubbed Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management—and opted primarily for the former. Examples include artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere or even real trees in restored forests. After all, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is simply reversing the climate experiment we've been engaged in since, well, at least the founding of the Royal Society in 1663.

Of course, that more sensible solution is also more costly. It would be cheaper to simply go the route of managing solar radiation—for instance, by pumping sulfate and other aerosols into the atmosphere, thereby mimicking the cooling blanket of a major volcanic eruption, and keeping that up continuously until the underlying problem resolves itself, however long that might take. This approach might have a few significant side effects, potentially including, but not limited to acid rain, the elimination of the ozone layer in the stratosphere, and years without summers.

So why even consider it? "If we are confronted with a climate emergency and decide we cannot tolerate any more warming, engineering some system to deflect more sunlight back to space would likely be the primary option available to cool the Earth quickly," said report coauthor and climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University in a prepared statement. "We need to study these options now so that we can understand the pluses and minuses in case we need to deploy them."

Already marked as minuses, according to the report, are the charcoal soil amendment known as biochar, fertilizing the ocean with iron to promote plankton blooms, and schemes to make Earth more reflective by putting mirrors across deserts (or, for that matter, painting roofs white) because, in the latter case, it's just not deemed to be very effective. A similar report from the U.K.'s Institution of Mechanical Engineers, however, found a little more merit in the white roofs technique as well as the aforementioned artificial trees or carbon dioxide-sucking algae turned to biofuel.

My personal favorite is what I call the fleet of Flying Dutchmans—crewless ships spraying saltwater into the air to increase cloud cover. According to research from the University of Texas and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, global warming could be solved by spending a mere $9 billion on such ships.

Nevertheless, as the report states: "The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change." And shading the Earth one way or another from the sun would do nothing to stop climate change's other major impact: more acidic oceans.

But geoengineering is serious business. Everyone from the American Meteorological Society to Obama's science advisor John Holdren—and now the Royal Society whose motto is "Take nobody's word for it"—has endorsed further study of these seemingly mad scientist schemes because we may need them. And that's because mankind's most massive geoengineering scheme to date—climate change courtesy of greenhouse gas emissions—is already going gangbusters.

<a href=http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=is-geoengineering-humanitys-last-ho-2009-09-01>source w/links in article</a>

[styky]

Emergency Climate Control: Geoengineering Risks
Written by Michael Ricciardi
Published on September 27th, 2009
With the news that climate change is occurring at a faster rate than climate models have predicted, geoengineering solutions have been brought to the fore and are being taken more seriously. The main focus of these emergency geoengineering strategies is a reduction in “shortwave” radiation entering the Earth’s atmosphere via the solar wind.

The short-term goal here is an overall reduction in global atmospheric temperatures to slow, or even reverse, warming trends. These solutions include increasing the amount of reflective particles surrounding the Earth by placing reflective particles (”mirrors”) outside the atmosphere. Such a solution may be justified to quickly curtail an emergent crisis–such as the rapid disintegration of the polar icecaps. Another strategy is to blanket the upper atmosphere with sulfur particles to block shortwave energy from reaching the Earth’s surface, thus producing a pronounced cooling effect (of variable duration).

However, in a recently published paper, Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies by Blackstock et al, this and other controversial strategies are analyzed in terms of feasibility, short-term impact, and also, the potential risks and dangers. The authors are also calling for a study phase. The major criticism in the paper is that current geoengineering strategies focus on a reduction of temperature without due consideration of the impact on precipitation, which also drives climate change. The cooler the surface temperature, in general, the less overall precipitation ( due to the fact that there is less energy for evaporation). Focusing only on temperature reduction, via incoming solar radiation, could backfire, leading to a shift in global hydrology cycles and, possibly, drought. Also, sulfur in the atmosphere combines with water to form sulfuric acid–the primary source of “acid rain”–a problem dramatically reduced since the passage of the Clean Air act. <a href=http://ecoworldly.com/2009/09/27/emergency-climate-control-geoengineering-risks/>continued</a>

[styky]

Five extreme ways to beat climate change

From virtual volcanos to space mirrors, science is exploring new ways to fend off global warming

o David Adam
o The Guardian, Wednesday 4 November 2009
Stratospheric aerosols

Mimics the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption by spraying shiny sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere. Relatively cheap and easy to do, though it would require non-stop effort as the chemicals gradually fall back to Earth. Possible side effects include changes to global water cycle and rainfall. Would not stop CO2 build up and subsequent effects including ocean acidification.

Plausibility: 7/10

Ocean fertilisation

Dump iron into the sea to boost plankton growth and soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Hard to do on a significant scale and could contravene international laws on ocean dumping. Doubts about how deep the plankton would sink have raised questions on how permanent a solution it would be.

Plausibility: 5/10

Cloud whitening

Fleets of sailing ships strung across the world's oceans could spray seawater into the sky to evaporate and leave behind shiny salt crystals to brighten clouds, which would then reflect sunlight back into space. Could be turned off at any time, but might interfere with wind and rain patterns. Would not address ocean acidification.

Plausibility: 6/10

Space mirrors

Seemingly straight out of Hollywood; a giant sunshade in space could block the sun. More likely to be a collection of millions or even trillions of small mirrors rather than a giant orbiting parasol. Very expensive and would require some serious rocket building to enable so many launches, which could cause problems for the ozone layer.

Plausibility: 2/10

Carbon swallowing

Artificial trees could soak up carbon dioxide from the air using a chemical process. Technically possible but very expensive on a meaningful scale. Captured carbon would still need to be disposed of. One of the few options that could turn back the clock and reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Plausibility: 4/10

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -solutions

[Fabulous Fred]

Perhaps that might more aptly be named "Five Ways to Screw Up the Planet by Well Meaning but Woefully Unqualified Science Zealots".

We do not know enough about weather to start with this. We can't kill the planet, we just don't have that capacity, but we can kill off ourselves, all other mammals and most of the rest of earths life forms.

The planet will recover even if it takes 10,000,000 years. The time is going to pass one way or another.