Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giving Climate Change a Kick
ScienceNOW Daily News ^ | 9 November 2007 | Eli Kintisch

Posted on 11/10/2007 7:59:04 PM PST by neverdem

Picture of iceberg

Concern.
Scientists say that the rapid pace of climate change, such as melting of ice in Greenland, make it worth studying ways to reverse global warming.

Credit: Nick Cobbing/Peter Arnold, Inc.

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS--Top climate scientists have cautiously endorsed the need to study schemes to reverse global warming that involve directly tinkering with Earth's climate. Their position on geoengineering, which will likely be controversial, was staked out at an invitation-only meeting that ended here today. It's based on a growing concern about the rapid pace of global change and continued anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

"In this room, we've reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this," said climate modeler Chris Bretherton of the University of Washington, Seattle, during a morning session today. Phil Rasch, a modeler with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, underscored the point. "We're not saying that there should be geoengineering, we're saying there should be research regarding geoengineering." No formal statement was released at the meeting, which was organized by Harvard University and the University of Calgary, but few of the 50 scientists objected to the idea.

The field of geoengineering has long been big on ideas but short on respect. Some of the approaches that researchers have dreamed up include launching fleets of space-based shades to dim the sunlight hitting Earth or altering the albedo of the ocean with light-colored reflectors. Perhaps the best-known idea is to pump aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes. But there's been scant support from mainstream scientists, many of whom fear that even mentioning the g-word could derail discussion of carbon-emissions cuts. Others worry that technological tinkering might backfire. "I just accepted on faith as an environmental scientist that this had to be a bad idea," said Harvard's Scot Martin, who said he was reluctantly coming around.

Harvard geochemist Daniel Schrag and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary thought that geoengineering deserved a closer look (Science, 26 October, p. 551). In an opening presentation yesterday, Schrag explained that extensive, rapid melting of arctic sea ice (ScienceNOW, 2 May) and the fact that the world's 2005 and 2006 carbon emissions from fossil fuels were higher than predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are forcing the hands of climate scientists. Schrag also fears that when countries are faced with the prospect of even more drastic environmental change, they will turn to geoengineering regardless of whether the consequences are known. "We're going to be doing this if we're afraid of something really bad happening, like the Greenland ice sheet collapsing," he said.

The degree of scientific uncertainty was clear throughout the 2-day meeting. In a discussion of existing models, climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California, concluded that reducing the intensity of sunlight hitting Earth by about 2% could "markedly diminish" the massive warming effects of an atmosphere with a carbon dioxide content of 560 parts per million (ppm). (The current level is about 385 ppm.) But over lunch, researchers debated the analysis. "You know you can get some sea ice back," Caldeira said to David Battisti of the University of Washington, Seattle. "I don't know that," Battisti retorted, explaining that Caldeira's model assumed a so-called slab ocean, which does not include the heat circulation patterns that help determine the fate of polar ice.

And then there are the risks. Harvard paleoclimate scientist Peter Huybers told his colleagues during one session that understanding of the world's climate may not be sufficient to properly wield geoengineering tools. "We should be humble about how much we know about the climate system," Huybers said.

Most of the discussion focused on whether to jump-start what has been an anemic research agenda with no public financing. Some participants said that they were spurred into action by a paper that appeared in Climatic Change last year, in which Nobelist Paul Crutzen called for geoengineering research (Science, 20 October 2006, p. 401). Others were swayed more recently. Just 2 weeks ago, modeler Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago in Illinois, writing on the RealClimate blog, compared discussing geoengineering to "having a shiny new toy" and told climate scientists to "get back to the serious business of trying to figure out how to economically reduce global CO2 emissions." At the meeting, however, Pierrehumbert urged scientists to study the problem as a supplement to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, although he called for a 10-year moratorium on any geoengineering. "To the extent I've changed my mind a little bit," Pierrehumbert explained to Science, the reason is the ease with which countries could embark on geoengineering.

Harvard climate researcher James Anderson told the group that the arctic ice was "holding on by a thread" and that more carbon emissions could tip the balance. The delicacy of the system, he said "convinced me of the need for research into geoengineering," Anderson said. And 5 years ago? "I would have said it's a very inappropriate solution to the problem."

Related site



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; geoengineering; globalwarming; science
How to Cool the Globe
1 posted on 11/10/2007 7:59:05 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
easy.

Seed high-altitude clouds from commercial planes.

Global temps went up .25 degrees in the three days after 9/11/2001 because there were no airplanes flying.

So, to eliminate AGW, eliminate the AGW extremists. (Er, double the number of airplanes.)

2 posted on 11/10/2007 8:01:05 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Dear God, it's one thing to lie through your teeth to steal from us, or to push a social engineering agenda on us, but if they are going to actively try to "tinker" with the world in this way, I do hope that we are not so pussified as to not rise up and hang the lot of them before they can do real damage that we will simply not walk away from.
3 posted on 11/10/2007 8:07:49 PM PST by bill1952 ("all that we do is done with an eye towards something else." - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Perhaps the best-known idea is to pump aerosols into the stratosphere


4 posted on 11/10/2007 8:22:13 PM PST by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Moonlight

LOL!


5 posted on 11/10/2007 8:23:27 PM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
Agreed. I’ve seen repeatedly stated as fact that the last several million years has been characterized by 100,000 year cycles consisting of around 90,000 years of ice age to 10,000 years of warmth. Furthermore, I read that we are about 12,000 years into the latest warm spell. By that, the predictions of a new ice age in the ‘70’s are likely to be true sooner rather than later. It is a good thing, dammit, if our SUV’s are in any way slowing down a coming ice age. If these nut cases with their Chicken Little hysteria, influence governments to do something which puts my house under half a mile of ice, I will be seriously pissed off.
6 posted on 11/10/2007 8:23:43 PM PST by free_for_now (No Dick Dale in the R&R HOF? - for shame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

INTREP


7 posted on 11/10/2007 8:23:48 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
Exactly right. Every time man has tinkered with the environment on any scale bigger than a backyard garden, they have f'd it up. We've trashed national parks, irreversibly changing their makeup of plant life and animals. We've accidentally and intentionally introduced species into places they don't belong, with disastrous results for the local flora and fauna.

I can hear the so-called scientists now. "But we're smarter now, we know more than we did then." Yeah, that's exactly what every one of these environmentalists on their way to creating a catastrophe said/thought in the past too...

There had better be active resistance to any thought of geoengineering. I have zero, absolute zero confidence that these people have any real idea what they are doing, and can honestly say with any certainty they know what the outcome would be. They are contemplating fooling with a system that is so complex they have no way of modeling it, no way of understanding it, and they know, know that they don't know all the variables and all the interactions. To presume to fool with it is utter madness.

8 posted on 11/10/2007 8:30:36 PM PST by CodeMasterPhilzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And to think we, the public, fund them!!!!!


9 posted on 11/10/2007 8:32:03 PM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Top climate scientists have cautiously endorsed the need to study schemes to reverse global warming that involve directly tinkering with Earth's climate.

If you liked it when the government decided in the 1930s that it could control the economy, just wait'll it legislates itself the power to "control" the climate.

This is why we need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from taking any action to regulate carbon or control the weather.

10 posted on 11/10/2007 8:36:52 PM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So these “scientists” screw with something they don’t completely understand which then brings famine inducing drought to China and Russia.

Hmmm. Wonder who they’ll blame? Think the “scientists” will just call a mulligan?


11 posted on 11/10/2007 9:18:15 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (No buy China!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“In this room, we’ve reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this,”

Permit me to translate: “We need to make a lot of money off of research grants. Screw science... we’re into frigging money and we’d drive over our own damned grandmothers to get it.”

12 posted on 11/10/2007 9:26:27 PM PST by Brucifer (G. W. Bush "The dog ate my copy of the Constitution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
I do hope that we are not so pussified as to not rise up and hang the lot of them before they can do real damage

Aside from the sheer entertainment value of such an act, it would have the salutory direct effect of removing their emissions & carbon footprint completely. That should make them happy, knowing they were becoming part of the solution.

The next round could be the anti-nuke crowd, with both similar exemplary effects, plus clearing the way to build new nuke plants, so those expensive, spewing, emitting EVIIIIL coal plants could be phased out.

Third round could be the tree huggers, clearing the way to actually take care of our forests again, reducing fire danger; and restoring decent prices for forest products & putting people back to work in the forests.

13 posted on 11/10/2007 9:32:47 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (If God didn't want a Liberal hanging from every tree, He wouldn't have created so much rope!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"In this room, we've reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this," said climate modeler Chris Bretherton of the University of Washington, Seattle.

"Incredibly, we all agreed," he continued, "that a mere twenty or thirty tractor-trailers filled with taxpayer cash would help us begin the essential research that needs to be done."

14 posted on 11/10/2007 9:38:10 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

“Global temps went up .25 degrees in the three days after 9/11/2001 because there were no airplanes flying.”

Correlation is not causation - the first order of true science.


15 posted on 11/10/2007 9:57:14 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Concur.

The observation appears valid: the cause (fundamental reason) is theorized to be high altitude clouds enhanced/formed by the aircraft vapor trails increasing cloud cover -> increasing reflections from the atmosphere.

On a normal day, there would be a few percent more clouds up high than on a day without jet traffic. Thus, if there were no jets over a three day period, temps should rise a little bit because more energy is absorbed, not reflected by clouds.

They did measure average temps over the US in the three days after 9/11 and temps did go up by a .25 degree (rem - check actual value).

Thus, to combat global warming, increase jet traffic. Or increase contrail formation by seeding or aerosol injection.

16 posted on 11/10/2007 10:03:15 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

A theory is not the production of evidence of a cause.

In every sense, from “chem trails” to “CO2” there is frequent unproven application of mindless zero-sum affects for things in an atmosphere of knowledge that KNOWS it is not true (zero sum affects) and KNOWS that we know far less than what we do know about the total dynamic complexity of the atmosphere.

A theory and a statistical correlation are not evidence of a “cause”, only actual, on hand evidence of an input and ALL affects resulting from it can any verifiable cause be attributed to that input and that input alone.

What were ALL the other climate elements and their attributes and their behaviors and their values - over the U.S. - over those three days? Not known or even stated to be known.

Is it without reason and without evidence, when there has been no great change in airline activity over the US during a three day period, for the upper atmosphere to have registered a 0.25 degree change over that period. IN FACT IT IS NOT. Ergo - correlation is not causation.

The mean average temperate is not a statement of a day to day constant. In some small measure, to some small degree, the only constant is that it changes.


17 posted on 11/10/2007 10:21:27 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We can’t have someone solving the problem.


18 posted on 11/10/2007 11:03:23 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Democrat Happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free_for_now

According to one theory*, we are about 2,000 years past due for an ice age. First agriculture, then industrialization have prolonged the inter-glacial period. You should get a tax credit for driving an SUV.

* Sorry, I don’t have a reference or URL.


19 posted on 11/10/2007 11:54:20 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“In this room, we’ve reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this,”

KA-CHING!

Well hell yeah, they are going to say that.

Get that grant money for studying crap that will never be done.


20 posted on 11/11/2007 1:13:57 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Agreed. This world will be in REAL trouble if these idiots start messing with the atmosphere.


21 posted on 11/11/2007 4:23:10 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Since "global warming is caused by people" is a consensus rather than a scientific fact, this could be a money-saver. There should be a reduction in spending on scientists in general, since the politicians can just make up the answers and fit the questions in later.
22 posted on 11/11/2007 4:30:01 AM PST by Bernard ("Rare, Safe and Legal" - what an ideal Immigration Policy should look like.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
"The observation appears valid: the cause (fundamental reason) is theorized to be high altitude clouds enhanced/formed by the aircraft vapor trails increasing cloud cover -> increasing reflections from the atmosphere."

Hey! Those contrails are from the evil government jets spraying the population with mind control drugs. Everyone knows that. Just turn on your AM transistor radio and listen to the talk shows late at night. There are "scientists" that call in and admit it.

(snicker)

23 posted on 11/11/2007 4:38:36 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
"Get that grant money for studying crap that will never be done."

Don't bet on it. Look what idiotic "scientists" did with the Sahara desert. Spent billions bulldozing, planting tree lines, seeding grass and watering etc. trying to stop the desert from expanding, only to find out a decade or so later that the Sahara desert expands and contracts it's borders naturally.

Now these "scientists" want more taxpayers money to "study" ways to mess with the atmosphere. Hang them NOW.

24 posted on 11/11/2007 4:47:59 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar
If they can do it then they will do it because they can do it. All stated reasons will be false.
25 posted on 11/11/2007 5:02:19 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them OVER THERE than to have to fight them OVER HERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Giving Climate Change a Kick

I don't buy the term "climate change," or "global warming."

I prefer to think of it as an "alternative climate." It's perfectly legitimate and should have every right than the other, entrenched, patriarcal climate has. Even more, perhaps, because it has been disenfranchised and oppressed for millenia.

I'm just getting started on this. Maybe like-minded people can help me promote acceptance of Alternative Climates and Alternative Environments.

26 posted on 11/11/2007 6:26:51 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (keep the heat on the hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Top climate scientists… - I want to see the exact same number of “Top climate scientists” who disagree with this.

”"In this room, we've reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this…” - grants and funding must be kept going……..

Some of the approaches that researchers have dreamed up include launching fleets of space-based shades to dim the sunlight hitting Earth or altering the albedo of the ocean with light-colored reflectors. Perhaps the best-known idea is to pump aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes. But there's been scant support from mainstream scientists, many of whom fear that even mentioning the g-word could derail discussion of carbon-emissions cuts. Others worry that technological tinkering might backfire.

Albedo?...now this IS scary….” reflective power; specifically : the fraction of incident radiation (as light) that is reflected by a surface or body (as the moon or a cloud)

Put the monkeys back in their cages before they can harm anyone, Mother Nature will take care of her Earth the old fashioned way.

27 posted on 11/11/2007 6:28:28 AM PST by yoe ( NO THIRD TERM FOR THE CLINTON'S!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This Global warming stuff really makes me laugh. The world may indeed be warming. We may even have catostrophic weather events - so what?

It’s all happened before.

Wasn’t it the looney left like Dr David Suzuki who, only a few years ago, was saying there were too many people on the planet. Hear then is the perfect cull scenario. Oh wait a minute... a lefty might have to suffer .... it might actually happen to one of them not just some poor folks in India or China ....SH#T call out the national guard or something!

What a bunch of selfish dorks!

Mel


28 posted on 11/11/2007 6:43:01 AM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

A freeper who watches the Public television series NOVA? Please sir, the facts are strangers here.


29 posted on 11/11/2007 6:46:07 AM PST by mission9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf

~~ AGW™ ping~~


30 posted on 11/11/2007 7:49:48 PM PST by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It seems to me we all ought to eat our food raw. With no ovens heating things up, the earth will cool.

Oh - and no AC. If they are pushing cold air into our homes, it stands to reason they are pushing hot air out onto Mother Gaia. And more sweating bodies ought to help with cooling the increase in population.


31 posted on 11/11/2007 7:52:57 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I'm not sweating global warming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson