Calls for Geo-Engineering at the Royal Society (global warming)

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/calls-for-geo-engineering-at-the-royal-society/ ^

[chessplayer]

"Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists"

"Political inaction on global warming has become so dire that nations must now consider extreme technical solutions - such as blocking out the sun - to address catastrophic temperature rises, scientists from around the world warn today."

[AmericaUnited]

Is a society of scientists or RETARDS?

[rightwingcrazy]

The Sun has something to do with warming on the planet? Not what I heard.

[Regulator]

Inbreeding in Britain has led to the regrettable degradation of the intellectual capacity of the core of their scientific community.

[chaos_5]

I think these guys need to watch The Matrix, and reconsider blocking out the sun.

[Nipfan]

Is this satire?

[Sacajaweau]

Plant a tree.

My son bought me plants for my apartment....said I needed oxygen because I didn't open the windows enough. The plants are croaking and I'm opening the windows more. Darn things need water.

[Tarpon]

Retards ...

Who would ever think the sun controls Earth’s weather and climate. I am going back to the beach and check out the theory. I hear the sun has gone on holiday for an unspecified period.

[ETL]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at the relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually lagged behind temperature increases ...by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had once led to increased warming during the past 400,000 years. -ETL

_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[synchron]

The extra heat is supposed to cause more hurricanes, but they need to seed clouds to reflect sunlight off the planet.

[expatpat]

These are the Mad Scientists of popular movies since “Frankenstein”. I speak as a scientist, myself — these people are nuts.

[JerseyHighlander]

The past winners and runners up in the upper class twit of the year races are now given control of the Royal Society as part of the prize package. Which is almost as vaunted a prize as the lifetime supply of tweed vests.

[AmericaUnited]

I am going to join this group and suggest we make the earth flat again, so carbon dioxide can escape and the planet will be saved..

[ApplegateRanch]

With the new ice age coming, maybe they better worry about putting mirrors in orbit to reflect extra sunlight onto the earth.

[LibLieSlayer]

How about we just get rid of all the gubmint tit-sucking, left-wing scientists and end this problem once and for all. No sun spots last month (first time in 100 years) and real scientists say we are headed in the opposite direction that these grant whores say that we are.

LLS

[CPOSharky]

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

See my tag line.

[alloysteel]

Did somebody say “risky scheme?”

Was this what Al Gore was talking about in 2000?

Unlax, Al. The earth has a built-in regulatory system the GUARANTEES that neither runaway heating of the atmospher, nor runaway cooling of the oceans shall ever take place.

It is called “water”, and as a vapor, is overwhelmingly the most important greenhouse gas by a factor of about a hundred times the effect of ANYTHING else. As a liquid, it can contain a HUGE amount of latent heat, even at near freezing temperatures. AS a solid, ice, it keeps the runaway heat increase in check, because of the sheer vast quantity of heat needed to MELT the quantities of ice that exist on this planet at any given time.

[Robert A Cook PE]

These are the guilty (extremist/unthinking/unknowning (?)/ignorant) “scientists” who are pushing “more research” (on their ideas, from somebody else's budget of course):

Writing the introduction to a special collection of scientific papers on the subject, published today by the Royal Society, Brian Launder of the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of Cambridge say: “While such geoscale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing.”

They add: “There is increasingly the sense that governments are failing to come to grips with the urgency of setting in place measures that will assuredly lead to our planet reaching a safe equilibrium.”

Professor Launder, a mechanical engineer, told the Guardian: “The carbon numbers just don't add up and we need to be looking at other options, namely geo-engineering, to give us time to let the world come to its senses.” He said it was important to research and develop the technologies so that they could be deployed if necessary. “At the moment it's almost like talking about how we could stop world war two with an atomic bomb, but we haven't done the research to develop nuclear fission.”

Such geo-engineering options have been talked about for years as a possible last-ditch attempt to control global temperatures, if efforts to constrain emissions fail. Critics argue they are a dangerous distraction from attempts to limit carbon pollution, and that they could have disastrous side-effects. They would also do nothing to prevent ecological damage caused by the growing acidification of the oceans, caused when carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater. Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dismissed geo-engineering as “largely speculative and unproven and with the risk of unknown side-effects”.

Dr Alice Bows of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester said: “I'm not a huge fan of messing with the atmosphere in an geo-engineering sense because there could be unpredictable consequences. But there are also a lot of unpredictable consequences of temperature increase. It does appear that we're failing to act [on emissions]. And if we are failing to act, then we have to consider some of the other options.”

In a strongly worded paper with colleague Kevin Anderson in today's special edition of the society's Philosophical Transactions journal, Bows says politicians have significantly underestimated the scale of the climate challenge. They say this year's G8 pledge to cut global emissions 50% by 2050, in an effort to limit global warming to 2C, has no scientific basis and could lead to “dangerously misguided” policies.

The scientists say global carbon emissions are rising so fast that they would need to peak by 2015 and then decrease by up to 6.5% each year for atmospheric CO2 levels to stabilise at 450ppm, which might limit temperature rise to 2C. Even a goal of 650ppm - way above most government projections - would need world emissions to peak in 2020 and then reduce 3% each year.

Note a few things: Other, including the IPCC (!) discredit eco-engineering - properly, but for the wrong reason. Note that NONE of their predictions since 1996 have come true - in even the ten year short term between 1998 and 2008 - but we promised catastrophy in 150 years if CO2 isn't stopped.

[webrover]

These people need to be institutionalized. They are quite insane and are a clear and present danger to others.

[jonrick46]

Indeed very risky. Any miscalculation could send the Earth’s climate spiralling into a cooling cycle that would be unstoppable. We had such a cooling cycle in the past, when the Earth was so cold, its oceans were frozen to tremendous depth. The global mean temperature was about 50°C (-74°F) because most of the Sun’s radiation was reflected back to space by the icy surface. The only thing that saved the Snowball Earth was volcanic activity. We do not have the advantage of such volcanic activity on that level. I would rather have that extra margin of safety that a high CO2 level provides than an unstoppable cooling trend.