Skip to comments.For Unproven Theory, Scientists Propose Unproven Solutions
Posted on 04/13/2014 12:01:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What’s even more dubious than claims of catastrophic warming? Claims that scientists know what to do about it.
The IPCC released a report warning that unless a “rapid shift” to green energy is undertaken, we’re all going to die…or, something.
And even that may not be enough. The group is saying that we “might even need to enlist controversial technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
We’ll get started right away on those gigantic atmospheric scoops to remove all those offensive greenhouse gases.
It’s more of the same from the IPCC, with a little more hysteria to get our juices flowing.
“There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual,” said Germany’s Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who co-chaired the IPCC report, the third in a series released in the past year. The Working Group III report, written by 235 scientists from 57 countries, looks at myriad ways to fight climate change and serves as a potential road map for policymakers who plan to negotiate a new climate treaty next year in Paris.
“If we do nothing, temperatures will continue to rise,” co-author Leon Clarke, a scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said from Berlin after wrapping up a week of discussions there to finalize the report’s wording. “It’s not necessarily a phaseout of fossil fuels,” he said, but rather “a phaseout” of power plants and other facilities that don’t capture the carbon they emit.
Holding emission increases to 3.6 degree Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels a goal sought in international agreements will require “heroic efforts” and a “massive” shift in the energy sector, says another U.S. co-author, David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s doable in theory … but it will be extremely difficult.”
Despite efforts to mitigate climate change, the report says global greenhouse gas emissions rose 2.2% annually in the past decade nearly twice the annual rate of 1.3% from 1970 to 2000. It says fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes, which rose as the global population and economy grew, accounted for 78% of the emissions’ increase between 1970 and 2010. It says about half of cumulative man-made carbon emissions since 1750 has occurred in the last 40 years.
The IPCC report says delaying action will only escalate the costs of transitioning to energy that emits less or zero greenhouse gases. It doesn’t endorse any single approach but cites the value of planting forests, boosting energy efficiency and by 2050 at least tripling the share of energy from zero-carbon sources such as nuclear, solar and wind.
It also points to more ambitious measures such as “bio-energy with carbon capture and storage” or BECCS, in which power plants produce fuel by burning biomass trees, plant waste, wood chips then capture and store the CO2 emissions underground. Victor says BECCS holds appeal for the future because it produces energy while actually reducing emissions.
So we denude the planet of trees to save us from global warming? What’s not to like?
In truth, there is no proof — experimental proof, mathematical proof, or proof via any known scientific process — that any of these “solutions” will work. Models may be suggestive that reducing emissions will mitigate climate change, but do we invest trillions of dollars into marginal technologies based on modelling? Given the IPCC’s track record of models predicting temperature rise, perhaps we ought to try a little harder to gather hard evidence of possible success before going off half-cocked.
Besides, reducing man’s imprint on the climate may not be enough. Perhaps the scientists could invent a machine that shuts down volcanoes. It would probably be easier than trying to run a modern economy on solar and wind power.
But this is not about the economy. It’s about control — and enriching people like IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri who is massively invested in green energy schemes.
All in a day’s work for the IPCC.
Couldn’t we just throw a bunch of politicians into a volcano as a sacrifice and be done with it?
LOL! Probably have more chance of success than what they propose.
These idiots trying to play God are going to really screw up the earth.
Without CO2, plants die. No plants, no oxygen. No oxygen, no humans. We should be working to create more CO2
Volcanoes are the real menace and I doubt that the thousands of eruptions are considered in the EPA data. I posted this on an earlier thread but it’s worth repeating. The USGS site has some terrifying statistics.
The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earths lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earths surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earths surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact. Sulfur dioxide from the large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time.
***just a small excerpt***
They’ll get funding. That’s all that matters.
When you start with theoretical models of problems designed to create mass paranoia and hysteria, and continue along with solutions based on theoretical data, driven by the paranoia and hysteria that has been produced, you are going to wind up drowning in that famous creek that is full of poop, and a paddle won’t do any good. Killing off hundreds of millions of people, and putting more into poverty is not a good way to discover that weather can’t be predicted.
All Of This”So-Called Science”Is Based(Solely)On”Computer-Models”!If You Want A Certain”Result”,You Front-Load A Computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, we got plenty of politicians so we should be able to make enough ‘sacrifices’ to please the Volcano Gods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.