Wacky Geo-ingineering Ideas to Save Our Planet

Reprinted from totallytopten.com

Post Pic

On 12.29.09,  by wmmattler

The solution to climate change lies not in the hands of politicians, but some seriously nutty scientists.

For the uninitiated, Geo-engineering is easiest explained as the plan B in the fight against climate change, in case our politicians and world leaders fail. And as the Kyoto agreement is due 2012, with both Bali and Copenhagen settled disappointments, it is perhaps time for drastic action.

Scientists all over the world are already on it.

10. Ocean Iron Fertilization

“Give me half a tanker of iron, and I’ll give you an ice age” ~John Martin, discoverer of the Ocean Iron Fertilization Idea.

Introduce iron into the ocean’s upper layer and increase the amount of phytoplankton (plant plankton) in the ocean. This in turn will increase the amount of food for ocean life, strengthen the ecosystem and most importantly, take in CO2 and release

oxygen. The problem however, is not just the process but the scale on which it has to be done to make an impact.

9. Cloud Reflectivity Enhancement

Making clouds whiter. How? Apparently the “viable plan” by Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh is to have 1500 special ships known as Flettner ships to spray ocean water into the atmosphere. The ocean spray would work within a concept known as the Twomey Effect. The biggest problem is the lack on ocean nuclei needed due to pollution.

Problem: 1500 honkin’ ships shooting water into the air.

8. Scatterers – Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols

Release microparticles into the atmosphere at the rate of 1 million metric tons a year through the use of jumbo jets and military artillery. The idea is to reflect some of the sunlight entering our atmosphere, thus reducing warming effects and helping us keep nice and cool. Read more at Wikipedia.

Read the rest of the article here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

265 Responses to Wacky Geo-ingineering Ideas to Save Our Planet

  1. Tenuc says:

    None of the ideas are as daft as trying to reduce CO2 levels. We know this one won’t have any effect at all!

  2. Louis Hissink says:

    The real wacky idea is the belief that climate change is a problem in the first place – it isn’t.

  3. Wade says:

    I’ve got a better idea to save the earth. LET IT FIX ITSELF! What is going through your mind when you think the only way to save the earth from human meddling is to meddle with the earth.

  4. latitude says:

    How in this world did these so called “scientists” get the idea that
    all you have to add it iron to get plankton?

    Do they not have the slightest clue what they are talking about?

    Iron is not limiting in the open ocean

    Phosphorus is.

  5. mikelorrey says:

    I love it. I would theorize the possibility that the 1940-1979 cooling period can be explained by the millions of tons of shipping sunk into the oceans quite efficiently by attack subs during WWII, and the subsequent rusting of all that iron, feeding the worlds phytoplankton.

    Personally I’m more interested in changing the climate of Mars for the warmer than Earth to the cooler…

  6. It'sthesunstupid says:

    I like #8 It says “Thus reducing warming effects and helping us keep nice and cool.”
    I’m thinking people would rather have nice and warm at this time. How many people know that a warmer planet is better for humanity?

  7. mikelorrey says:

    latitude
    2010/01/09 at 3:34pm

    “How in this world did these so called “scientists” get the idea that
    all you have to add it iron to get plankton?

    Do they not have the slightest clue what they are talking about?

    Iron is not limiting in the open ocean, Phosphorus is.”

    From what I’ve read, it depends on which ocean. Atlantic needs iron, pacific needs phosphorus (or maybe the reverse, I forget).

  8. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    Cool the Earth. Makes sense – people die from lack of heating, energy consumption increases, economies sky dive, glaciers stop melting so water supplies are halted, farming collapses as plants can’t grow, mass starvation quickly follows and people begin to eat each other like zombies.

    But hey, as long as the common enemy is human and all animals are equally superior, as stated in Animal Farm, it might be a good idea!

  9. Calvin Ball says:

    Do these noodleheads understand what the ramifications of cutting 10% of incoming radiation are??? This is truly scary, putting serious stuff in the hands of these religious fanatics who are convinced we’re already in a runaway greenhouse hell. An anthropogenic ice age is not a pretty thought.

  10. mikelorrey says:

    Ever read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle’s novel, “Fallen Angels”? It posits just such a scenario. Theres a free version online…

    http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052X.htm

  11. Leon Brozyna says:

    Save the planet? You’ve got to be kidding!

    After reading the ten ideas I submit that what needs saving is human intelligence; it’s obviously failing horrifically.

  12. It'sthesunstupid says:

    So lets say they do a couple of irreversible idea’s and the sun goes through a Marauder Minimum type of event. We would be in a WORLD of hurt.

  13. Mike Ramsey says:

    Putting a screen at L5 couldn’t make the cut? I am disappointed.
    http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw138.html

    BTW, I think that John Martin was right about how much CO2 could be locked up. But how could you tax it?
    http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34167

  14. DocMartyn says:

    after Iron, copper is the next limiting metal. Crab’s, lobsters and the like use a cooper oxygen binding protein instead of an Iron one and are copper limited. They have switched from using Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase to using the (mitochondrial) manganese one. They also have deleated a few more Cu containing enzymes.
    So add a bit of copper to your iron, and the sea’s will bloom, but the whole eco-system will respond in strange ways.

  15. Curiousgeorge says:

    You know what the really sad part is about this kind of nonsense? It’s also being promoted by other media – See the History Channel (Earth 2100 ) for example, or all the other Armageddon crap coming out of Hollywood, Wash. DC. and other centers of popular culture and so called “leadership”. And people will believe it, and start doing this and other equally insane things. I’m starting to believe that it’s turning into a self fulfilling prophecy.

  16. astonerii says:

    I got a better question, because it is one that really needs addressing. If the Earth moves towards an ice age, what geo-engineering ideas would best prevent the advance of glaciers?

  17. SirRuncibleSpoon says:

    The whole zombie thing begins to seriously worry me. Hate to see it show up here in AL Gore’s Holy Hologram. IMO: Our artists function as the culture’s mine (mind) canaries; their increasing presentations of music, movies, books and etc with Zombie themes leads me to suspect there’s something afoot the rest of us, worried about losing weight and apologizing for our recent holiday party misbehaviors can easily miss.

    BTW: I have reviewed several recent videos of AlGore; I do believe he represents a Stage 3 Zombie. Still dresses well and moves with a residual degree of naturalness but the voice? That’s the tipoff.

    Oh, yeah: Just got home from viewing The Road and Zombieland. Do we really taste like chicken? What exactly are the ethics involved in cannibalism? No immediate family? Neighbors? What?

    Everywhere I turn, from Glenn Beck to WattsUp, I see the schematic of a culture in terminal stress stretching before me. I have fitted myself with a homemade aluminum foil hat and spend long hours alone in the basement. Waiting.

  18. mikelorrey says:

    RE a screen at L5:
    I’ve studied this option, actually, for a report to ESA on the viability of terraforming Venus. One of the issues is that a shade that size would generate non-negligible thrust outward from the solar wind as well as light pressure, as a massive solar sail. The shade would have to orbit somewhere closer to the Sun than L5 to counteract this thrust and remain in balance between the Sun and Earth. There is also the issue that L5 is a non-stable lagrange point, the shade would wind up in an orbit around the centerpoint, which would provide suboptimal shading. On the gripping hand it could be used to generate power to beam to Earth and would do so more efficiently, being closer to the sun.

    That said, I’ve conceived the idea of using a magnetoplasma sail (i.e. a magnetic field with plasma trapped in it) as a sort of plasma lens to shape sunlight heading to earth. How you shape the magnetic field determines the convexity or concavity of the optical properties of the plasma. This would allow you to, during cool periods, focus more sunlight on your target planet, and during warm periods diffuse sunlight away from the planet, allowing you to fine tune the amount of insolation reaching the planet at all times and thus freeing the planet from solar instability and cycles.

    It would also provide some degree of protection to Earth in the event of a severe CME or other superflare.

  19. u.k.(us) says:

    nice post, can’t wait to read the reply’s :)
    btw, just drag the broken off ice shelves into the tropics, problem solved!

  20. lowercasefred says:

    astonerii (15:51:40) :

    I got a better question, because it is one that really needs addressing. If the Earth moves towards an ice age, what geo-engineering ideas would best prevent the advance of glaciers?

    ********************

    Giant rubber doorstops. The aliens who inhabit hollow earth have them at the ready.

  21. lmg says:

    Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (15:38:08)

    You’ve revealed their plan. You will be terminated.

  22. Richard S Courtney says:

    People here are missing the point.

    Politicians need a way out. They have ‘nailed their colours to the mast’ of AGW. And the AGW scare is coming to an end.

    But politicians cannot say they were wrong to have supported AGW because that would lose them votes. And they cannot be seen to be doing nothing in response to the AGW scare that they have said is a serious threat because that would lose them votes. So, they have to be seen to be doing something.

    It is plain silly to say that the politicians need do nothing in response to the AGW scare. They have to be seen to be doing something while – in reality – doing nothing otherwise they will lose votes. And votes are their most important concern.

    Funding geo-engineering research while the AGW-scare fades away provides a complete solution to the problem. There is no real possibility that such schemes would or could be implemented if they were perfected (initiation of unilateral implementation of such a scheme by one country would be seen as an act of war by adjacent countries).

    Those here who cannot see this are naïve. What do they prefer politicians to do while AGW dies, impose Cap & Tax?

    Richard

  23. DirkH says:

    Iron fertilization has been tried by German researchers in JAN 2009 already, under protests from environmentalists (well whaddaya expect) and it failed, see for instance:
    http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0129-fertilization.html

  24. cba says:

    Gee, I amazed my favorite stupid idea wasn’t on the list. It should be #1 on all counts.

    In short, it consists of lots of thirsty envirowhackos, lots of beer, all on top of lots of high hills on or very near the equator, and the attempt at a slight quenching of the sun at local high noon on the vernal equinox.

    Of course, I don’t plan on attending or plan to be downwind of any of those hills.

  25. ALLEN CICHANSKI says:

    WHAT REALLY BAFFLES ME IS WHY (EXCEPT FOR FRAUDULENT HUSTLERS LIKE AL GORE) SO MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO WANT AGW TO BE TRUE. CLIMATEGATE REALLY DOES SEEM TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ALL A FRAUD AND YET SO MANY SEEM TO DESPERATELY HOPE THAT AGW WILL STILL HAPPEN. WHY ISN’T THE WORLD STANDING UP AND SHOUTING, “THANK GOD WE DON’T HAVE TO GO ALONG WILL ALL THIS SILLY GREENIE CRAP”. CO2 ISN’T THE DEVIL INCARNATE, ITS OK TO BURN GAS, OIL, AND COAL, WE DON’T NEED OR WANT CAP AND TAX TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD AND SEND US BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES. WHY DOES AGW HAVE ANY APPEAL FOR ANYONE WITH A SINGLE FUNCTIONING BRAIN CELL?

  26. Ian Innes says:

    In Dores by Inverness with a couple of feet of global warming outside… Brrrr…. it’s cold enough here already.

    Idiots

  27. eo says:

    Mitigating global warming should be a good excuse for people who dont want to remove the snow from their side walks and pathways. Local government could tax payers money and even claim credits for leaving the snow as it falls in their terriotries. Snow is very effective in reflecting solar energy back into space. Any estimate ?

  28. lmg says:

    I propose the US unilaterally resume above-ground nuclear weapons tests. This would cause the Russians to do the same. This in turn would cause all the loonies currently freaking out about global warming to freak out about background radiation instead, leaving the earth to regulate its own temperature unmolested.

  29. Michael says:

    I give Credit to all those WUWT folks that contributed. Thanks

    By Summer: Global Cooling And All That.
    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/121050

  30. rbateman says:

    Question Numero Uno: Is the really a dire necessity?
    Question # 2: What are the downsides to massively altering the Earth’s Climate?
    Question # 3: What happens when the reaction goes too far (now what?)?

    Before even considering which options there are available, the above questions need hard answers. If you don’t have them, then you don’t have any business messing with things you don’t understand/can’t control.
    And besides all that, there isn’t anything going on right now that has not happened at least twice already in the last 120 years. 1 degree F is peanuts compared to the range of which climate is known to have spanned.
    Leave the climate alone.
    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  31. Michael says:

    Correction:

    I give Credit to all those WUWT folks that contributed. Thanks

    Food Prices to Double And Triple By Summer: Global Cooling And All That.
    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/121050

  32. Charles Higley says:

    I work with an English teacher who is essentially too young to know about the Clean Air Act. He believes that everything that has been emitted into the air in the last 50 years is still there and must be dealt with. Wow! He also spouts a different alarm phrase every time anyone starts to explain why his statements are too broad or uninformed.

    He thinks that naturally emitted nitrogenous compounds break down by natural means, but how could it be possible that nitrogen compounds that we emitted in the 60s and 70s be broken down by natural processes? How could it possibly be effective?

    He also thinks we lose thousands of species a day to extinction and how could planting trees in rows possibly be good? He is against cutting down virgin forests and so am I, but planting trees in rows and having tree farms apparently cannot be good.

    The new green idea appears to be not to use wood for anything. So, using renewable resources is not green? I am so confused! What do they want us to use for toilet paper? Plastics, saw grass, or their arms?

  33. Dr. Bob says:

    I saw something on the Green channel I think. It had this billionaire Kevin O’Leary (or something like that) funding this guys effort to create billions of little refractor discs to scatter sunlight. They even made the discs and were seeing if they could withstand a rocket launch (they couldn’t.)

    What a bunch of whackos. I agree with the above poster that we need to address the world’s idiots first.

  34. DirkH says:

    “eo (16:14:39) :

    Mitigating global warming should be a good excuse for people who dont want to remove the snow from their side walks and pathways. Local government could tax payers money and even claim credits for leaving the snow as it falls in their terriotries. Snow is very effective in reflecting solar energy back into space. Any estimate ?”

    Write a proposal to the UN. You might earn some carbon credits under the CDM framework (clean development mechanism).

  35. mikelorrey says:

    What amuses me is that it was only a few years ago that the alarmists were four square against any geoengineering proposal as a solution, as they evidently wanted their socialist agenda implemented to put us all back in serfs smocks instead. I suppose now that they’re vested in geoengineering joint stock ventures, they have changed their tune.

  36. TheGoodLocust says:

    I think I like the reflective space ship idea the best. The quotes price tag, $100 billion a year, which wouldn’t be nearly as bad as the cost of cap and trade/carbon tax schemes. Not only that, it should be completely reversible and it would greatly increase our technological savvy.

  37. latitude says:

    Not at all Doc
    “So add a bit of copper to your iron, and the sea’s will bloom, but the whole eco-system will respond in strange ways.”

    Nitrogen can be fixed – atmosphere.
    Phosphorus is limiting in all open oceans. It’s made that way. It it didn’t, it wouldn’t work.
    Nitrogen fixation is done by things that also are limited by P.

    When you add anything like Cu, Fe, etc you just cause something else to become limiting.
    Liebig’s law of the minimum, which states that growth is limited by the factor that is present in minimal quantity.

    Adding Fe without adding P will not work.
    It just causes something else to become limiting.

  38. Tim says:

    How about some really big pumps at the equator to keep the gulf stream going and prevent the coming ice age?

  39. mikelorrey says:

    Better yet, paint your walkway white…

  40. Mark Miller says:

    If you read the article, solution #1 is a knee-slapper: A tank for cow farts. Question is how would they separate out the gas from the solids?… Didn’t I know that someone would come up with that. The real kicker is the writer’s solution, just put the cows into space to reflect sunlight, and then use a space shuttle to retrieve them when we need some meat. :) I don’t think that would work. As I recall the vacuum of space causes the water in biological organisms to expand and the body would explode, that is if it doesn’t freeze first.

  41. Gary P says:

    If the cost of adding iron to the oceans where it is needed is less the increase in the value of the fish that can harvested, then it is a good idea. The CO2 is irrelevant.

  42. DirkH says:

    “lmg (16:20:50) :

    I propose the US unilaterally resume above-ground nuclear weapons tests. This would cause the Russians to do the same. This in turn would cause all the loonies currently freaking out about global warming to freak out about background radiation instead, leaving the earth to regulate its own temperature unmolested.”

    Even better, we could get a finely balanced nuclear winter effect. As we’re being silly here, a wikipedia link should be allowed:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

    About as efficient and cheap as it gets. You want cold? Have some.

  43. Philip_B says:

    The best geo-engineering idea is to flood the Qatar (Qattara) depression. This would reduce sea levels, increase Earth’s albedo (more clouds and a large area of reflective water) and generate huge quantities of carbon free electricity.

    Interestingly, this idea was given serious scientific consideration until global warming hysteria came along, then it was quietly forgotten about.

    Cooling the planet and decreasing sea levels through some straightforward engineering is a seriously bad idea to the Warmingistas.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q771849x20120898/

  44. Sharon says:

    lmg (16:20:50) :

    I propose the US unilaterally resume above-ground nuclear weapons tests. This would cause the Russians to do the same. This in turn would cause all the loonies currently freaking out about global warming to freak out about background radiation instead, leaving the earth to regulate its own temperature unmolested.

    **********************************

    As a bonus, atomspheric testing might also trigger a Nuclear Winter, or maybe just a Little Nuclear Winter. I’m surprised this idea didn’t make the list.

    Oh, Carl (Sagan), where are you when we really need your PR savvy, I mean expertise, on planetary warming and cooling? Carl, phone home!

  45. Mapou says:

    They’d better get to work real fast because “climate change” AKA global warming (a rose by any other name…) is threatening to turn Florida into a winter wonderland.

    “Unusual weather event”
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_re_us/us_winter_weather

  46. Mike Ramsey says:

    mikelorrey (15:56:53) :

    Cost benefit.  It would cost quite a bit.  And the benefit?  If you turned on concave mode then it might mitigate the summer in one hemisphere but excaberate the winter in the other.  If you switch it to concave mode to make a winter less savere in one hemisphere then the summer hemisphere gets toasted.  And if terrorist get a hold of it ….

    And all those charged particals in the solar wind.  What kind of force would they exert?

     I don’t think that messing with mother nature is a good idea.

    Mike Ramsey

  47. kadaka says:

    How did #4, the Sulfur Dioxide hose, get pegged at a “300 trillion dollar bill”?

    When mentioned in SuperFreakonomics, as mentioned here, it was $20 million initial, $10 million annual budget. The linked Treehugger article talks about another guy who proposed it with a $50 billion cost.

    However, as to how “wacky” it really is, well, first off here is an Oct 16 2009 article (before Climategate!) from the Freakonomics site describing the smear campaign against them over it.

    Lastly, from this Treehugger article, I present examples of the prestigious and authoritative critics arrayed against the concept. Consider them as you will.

    (…)
    From there, the book goes on to make misleading claims about solar panels, geoengineering, and about the nature of climate change itself. The book’s authors, Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner, even misquote the only climate scientist they interviews. Prominent climate blogger Joe Romm of Climate Progress caught the book’s many errors while reading through a review copy, and posted the high voltage (and lengthily titled) critical post Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics': New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” — and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says “it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and “misleading” in “many” places.

    Romm’s post (well worth a read) was inflammatory but mostly right on–almost immediately, luminaries like Paul Krugman, Berkley economist Brad DeLong, the scientists at RealClimate, and countless others sided with the view that SuperFreakonomics mangles climate science.
    (…)

  48. u.k.(us) says:

    poke fun at these scientists if you will, but they are trying to save the world. it’s not all about government funding.
    until they get it.

  49. Robert says:

    @Dr. Bob (16:30:17) :

    Sometime ago i made an back of the envelope calculation about launching sunshades into space, that it required some 200.000 launches in 5 years time, that’s about a 110 launches a day and with a failure rate of about 2.5% (wich is about the rate at wich Russian R7 rockets fail) would result in 2 or 3 failed launches each day.

    To bad for those living under the launch trajectory.

    Other solutions:
    3. A dam in the Beringstrait, cold water into the pacific, warm can not flow back.
    2. Nudge the Asteroid Apophis to hit the earth instead of missing it.
    1. The most simple solution would be off course to launch a few nukes, you don’t need a full exchange of the nuclear stockpile.

  50. Bruce Cobb says:

    Richard S Courtney (16:07:31) :

    People here are missing the point.

    Politicians need a way out.

    They have one – the door. Many will be booted out it come election time.

  51. Daniel H says:

    The idea to fertilize the ocean with iron was the subject of a controversial 1991 paper by Fred Singer and Roger Revelle. It was the last scientific paper to be published with Revelle’s name on it prior to his death in July 1991. The controversy stems not from the ocean seeding idea, but from a statement made in the paper’s conclusion: “The scientific base for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time. There is little risk in delaying policy responses.” This contradicted what Al Gore had claimed in his book, _Earth in The Balance_, that Revelle was essentially an alarmist who inspired Gore to carry on the fight to stop global warming while Gore was his pupil at Harvard. It’s a fascinating story that ended with a libel lawsuit. Fred Singer gives his account of the story here: http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

    The man who lost the libel lawsuit, Justin Lancaster, has since released his own version of events that is contrary to Singer’s. Not surprisingly, Lancaster’s account is viewed uncritically by alarmists:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/11/the_real_truth_about_the_revel.php
    http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_myth.html

    It’s interesting to note that Lancaster posted a complete transcript of Singer’s deposition but neglected to post any record of his own.

  52. Eric Gisin says:

    There are three limiting elements for plankton: Fe, P, and Cr (B12).

    Idea #11: Get everyone on the equator to jump up&down at noon, putting earth into higher orbit.

  53. Mike Ramsey says:

    Mike Ramsey (16:52:30)

    Correction :

    If you turned on concave mode then it might mitigate the summer in one hemisphere but exacerbate the winter in the other.  If you switch it to convex mode to make a winter less severe in one hemisphere then the summer hemisphere gets toasted.

    Sorry about that.  The morale? Don’t post when the wife is calling you up for dinner.

  54. JDN says:

    DocMartyn (15:49:36) :

    after Iron, copper is the next limiting metal. Crab’s, lobsters and the like use a cooper oxygen binding protein instead of an Iron one and are copper limited.

    Actually, they’re trying to eliminate copper anti-fouling agents in the Chesapeake bay because of alleged copper toxicity in the wildlife. So, we’ve been adding copper to crabs & it hasn’t helped.

  55. David Schnare says:

    Geoengineering is an insurance policy in the event global temperatures rise significantly (say 6 or 7 deg. C) regardless of the cause. There has been next to no federal (US) funding for basic engineering work. The environmental left (who most of you call “alarmists”) hate the idea because its use would forstall the need for carbon reduction by decades, if necessary. That time would be used to transition off carbon.

    It is the perfect insurance policy as it is only used if needed. Its cost is so much less than carbon reduction that it would allow for significant economic growth (everywhere), another thing the environmental alarmists don’t want (because their basic agenda is Malthusian).

  56. Steve in SC says:

    Richard S Courtney (16:07:31) :

    People here are missing the point.

    Politicians need a way out. They have ‘nailed their colours to the mast’ of AGW. And the AGW scare is coming to an end.
    Richard

    The way out is via the ballot box. Politicians will never leave of their own volition. They must either be voted out, hung, or shot. Based on what they have been doing to us, I’m not so sure but what the last two options are to be preferred.

  57. MattN says:

    Oy…

  58. DirkH says:

    “Mike Ramsey (17:15:58) :
    [...]
    If you turned on concave mode then it might mitigate the summer in one hemisphere but exacerbate the winter in the other. If you switch it to convex mode to make a winter less severe in one hemisphere then the summer hemisphere gets toasted.”

    But if you can switch it from concave to convex and vice versa, you could also control where it focusses the light and thus, for instance, direct more sunlight to the hemisphere where there’s winter.

  59. David Hoyle says:

    We all know the ‘world ain’t broke’… it may be a bit scuffed around the edges in parts but how would you be after a few billion years and loads of animals tramping over you Eh??? but to try one of these screwball ideas might just completely #### it … well … you know what I mean… shame they can’t test these on all their models first… Oh… that wouldn’t work either…

  60. BarryW says:

    Richard S Courtney (16:07:31) :

    Hippie is standing on a street corner snapping his fingers. Man walks up and asked what he’s doing. Hippie says, “Man, I’m keeping the tigers away!”

    Man say, “that’s crazy, there are no tigers around here!”

    Hippie answers “See, it works!”

    That’s all the politicians need to do.

  61. rbateman says:

    IF they need a way out, then they should sign up to Piers Corbyn’s climate forecasts, and check his results with the Warmists models. The Warmists have so badly mangled thier own data and monkeyed with thier models that they don’t know which way is up.
    I’m pretty sure Piers would wipe the floor with them, in which case the Pols can proceed to throw the bad boys under the bus…and get it over with.
    Let the duel begin. Forecasting at 2-50 weeks.

  62. blondieBC says:

    http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/could-a-300-km-dam-save-the-arctic.html

    My favorite nutty idea. Also, dam building is proven technology.

  63. DocMartyn says:

    ” Robert (16:59:37) :
    Sometime ago i made an back of the envelope calculation about launching sunshades into space, that it required some 200.000 launches in 5 years time, that’s about a 110 launches a day and with a failure rate of about 2.5% (wich is about the rate at wich Russian R7 rockets fail) would result in 2 or 3 failed launches each day.”

    Well the levels of halides from the solid rocket boosters would wipe out the ozone layer. The material in LEO would make future manned flight impossible for a 100 years and the amount of vapor in the upper atmosphere would probably tip us into an ice-age.

  64. mikelorrey says:

    DirkH (17:32:09) : edit

    “Mike Ramsey (17:15:58) :
    [...]
    If you turned on concave mode then it might mitigate the summer in one hemisphere but exacerbate the winter in the other. If you switch it to convex mode to make a winter less severe in one hemisphere then the summer hemisphere gets toasted.”

    “But if you can switch it from concave to convex and vice versa, you could also control where it focuses the light and thus, for instance, direct more sunlight to the hemisphere where there’s winter.”

    Quite right. As for the terrorist fear (ghu, theres always a rant about terrorists to excuse not doing something), a plasma lens would not provide a high enough degree of focus to make a death ray of any danger. It would only focus or disperse some percentage of sunlight.

    Yes this sort of installation would be expensive. But it would be significantly less expensive than sunshades in space, which would require a massively huge structure (at least a few percent of the earth’s diameter). My concept eliminates the structural demands and replaces it with a magnetic field powered by sunlight itself, so it would likely be less than 1% of the cost of building a big sun shade in space.

  65. DocMartyn says:

    ” JDN (17:19:23) :
    Actually, they’re trying to eliminate copper anti-fouling agents in the Chesapeake bay because of alleged copper toxicity in the wildlife. So, we’ve been adding copper to crabs & it hasn’t helped.”

    A bit odd, CuSO4 is normally used to kill algae, and metallic copper has long been used to cover ships timbers to preserve them. Do you mean Tin? Tributyltin is quite a nasty ant-fouling agent and has been or is being banned all over.

  66. rbateman says:

    David Hoyle (17:37:25) :

    Actually, there is something they can ‘test it out’ on. Mars and Venus.
    Early 80’s plans were to terraform Mars with lichens at the Poles to warm it up and produce an atmosphere. They could try cooling down Venus (bwa ha ha ha).

    But as for Earth, even if sucessful, it’s bound to start WWIII due to the very nature of regional climates. One regions feast is another regions famine, so no matter how well you make things in one region, another will suffer the consequences. The climactically disparaged will resort to force of arms to seize neighboring resources. The whole Planet is likely to erupt in open warfare due to idiots playing with matches.
    Then what would one do? A Climate Alteration Test Ban Treaty? Too late.

  67. Tom in now it's really pissin me off cold Florida says:

    Perhaps we should just ship all those that would like a colder climate to Mars and let them wallow away in the cold. There they would learn that the CO2 they are afraid of doesn’t matter and when they are sufficiently schooled they can come back. Of course they must sign a letter of agreement that warmer is better.

  68. Jim F says:

    Number 10 – the iron idea – was probably conducted by the Earth about 2 billion years ago. The atmosphere was reducing to only slightly oxidizing, and the sea was full of iron (Fe+2 – ferrous – is readily soluble in water; Fe+3 – ferric – isn’t). Over long periods of years the great iron deposits of the world – Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Mesabi Range and others deposits in the US – were deposited in near-shore environments, sort of like the photo shows. The iron deposits are minutely layered more or less like growth rings in trees (probably summer/less oxygen/less iron precipitated) and winter (the opposite). A few trillion tons of matter (iron, oxygen and silica) is caught up in what’s left of the iron formations. Now where are we going to get multi-billions of tons of ferrous iron to return to the conditions that may have prevailed: “snowball earth”?

    Why don’t we just do better science to see what’s going on with our planet? The whole “scientific grant” scheme needs to be entirely changed so that another AGW scandal doesn’t occur.

  69. u.k.(us) says:

    David Schnare (17:23:32) :

    Geoengineering is an insurance policy in the event global temperatures rise significantly (say 6 or 7 deg. C) regardless of the cause. There has been next to no federal (US) funding for basic engineering work. The environmental left (who most of you call “alarmists”) hate the idea because its use would forstall the need for carbon reduction by decades, if necessary. That time would be used to transition off carbon.

    It is the perfect insurance policy as it is only used if needed. Its cost is so much less than carbon reduction that it would allow for significant economic growth (everywhere), another thing the environmental alarmists don’t want (because their basic agenda is Malthusian).
    =====================================
    insurance?, against what.
    fear??, fraud??, political agenda??

    it’s called extortion.

  70. photon without a Higgs says:

    OT

    vukcevic was the first to report last week that sea lions had left the San Francisco port area. The last time that happened was 1989 just before the Loma Priata earthquake.

    There was a 4.1 earthquake in Milpitas, California, 30 miles southeast of San Francisco, Thursday, two days ago.

    About 1 1/2 hours ago there was a 6.5 earthquake near Ferndale, California, 160 miles north of San Francisco. There’s been five aftershocks ranging 3.0 to 3.7 since then.

    Is a bigger one coming to the San Francisco/Oakland area?

    list of earthquakes from the USGS, in chronological order:

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/special/California_Nevada_eqs.php

  71. Basil says:

    I don’t know if it implies that he’s an advocate, but the context of Trenberth’s “It’s a travesty” remark in The CRU-Tape Letters had to do with geoengineering — that if we cannot account for energy flows in the climate system, then there is no way to conclude whether a geoengineering project or experiment was successful or not.

  72. jorgekafkazar says:

    ALLEN CICHANSKI (16:11:30) : “What really baffles me is why (except for fraudulent hustlers like Al Gore) so many people seem to want AGW to be true.”

    Addiction to adrenaline, the drug of choice for demagogues, batterers, and lovers of violence.

  73. Roger Sowell says:

    A novel by Kim Stanley Robinson (40 Below?) had some geo-engineering ideas. Pump ocean water onto the Antarctic ice cap to prevent sea level rise. Release genetically engineered lichen into northern forests, these grow rapidly and pull CO2 out of the air. Dump massive amounts of salt into the North Atlantic to re-start the ocean current conveyor.

    My suggestion is to use wind-generated power to irrigate in semi-arid lands. The incremental plant growth absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. Has the benefit of easily turning it off if or when the earth gets colder. This assumes, of course, that atmospheric CO2 has a causal relationship to earth’s average temperature. I conclude that it has no such causal relationship.

    http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/westward-ho-water-transfer-system.html

  74. mike sphar says:

    We better hope that the SETI search results in a colonizable and reachable alternative. As this cosmic neighborhood may be heading for serious trouble in a short time.

  75. Al says:

    I’ll throw another one on the pile for giggles.

    At the actual South Pole, temperatures never come within miles of zero Celsius, and you’re guaranteed massive heat losses all winter long. The heat losses are radiative losses from lack of atmospheric moisture and the six-month-day. Combined with the very high albedo of ground snow.

    But radiative heat loss is dependent on the fourth power of the emitter’s absolute temperature. A sealed pipe of twenty degree warmer sea water (think nearly 0C) with insulation on the bottom with a reasonably reflective top should lose heat even more efficiently than just a pile of -20C snow and ice.

    So what happens if we picture a box that has a hatch on the bottom like a train hopper, a massive heat sink on the roof – perhaps even an honest cooling tower, but reflective bare metal would go a long way – and a pipe carrying sea water in.

    The sea water freezes solid and breaks off of the surface it froze to (the roof). Release the ice to the ground, add more water. Repeat all winter long. For decades. If it makes it easier to visualize, think of a nuclear power plant’s cooling tower operated ‘counterflow’. Usually, the top would be where “warm moist air” escapes, but we’re precipitating out the ice.

    The main ongoing cost is pumping the water, but you end up sequestering it as ice.

  76. rbateman says:

    photon without a Higgs (17:56:40) :

    Solar Minimums tend to have more of their fair share of Earthquakes and Vulcanism than the random spread over time. Great Topic.
    I’m about 50 air miles due west of the epicenter off the Eureak coast. Didn’t feel a thing (good old Batholith to my immediate north) just noticed the lights kept flickering. People in town got shook as they are on basin fill.

  77. photon without a Higgs says:

    More deaths in Europe from cold:

    The bad weather is expected to last for another two weeks…Waterways leading to Berlin have started to freeze, impeding coal and oil deliveries…

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0108/1224261897093.html

  78. JonesII says:

    Ah those naive ideas!, all the rivers of the world and all winds over the earth carry quintillions of tons of Fe2O3 and Fe3O4 to the seas…what the…is, say, a thousand tons of ferrous sulphate…simply idiotic.
    Do those fools know that, for example, ferric chloride it is sold as “sewage grade”, because it is used to oxide sewage going to the seas?
    Put all chemical factories of the world to manufacture ferrous sulphate for this purpose and they won´t add a millionth percent of the iron naturally added by Gaia, ya know?.
    It´s the same stupidity and lack of common sense as CO2 believers and prophets: They consider themselves bigger than volcanoes (of course their idiocy is infinite!) or rather they have such a tremendous, and justified, inferiority complex that they compensate it with gigantic allucinations.
    Don´t worry Al Baby, daddy will make a whole world for you so you can be the president of it…you, only you!, so don´t cry…copenhagen was just a bad nightmare you had for eating too much..

  79. rbateman says:

    Mabye, jorge, what they really have in mind is a new war toy, disguised as ‘Saving the Planet’ !!!
    Who us??? We wuzn’t doing anything wrong, we wuz just savin da Planet.
    Our models say you’se guys is going to have ice to last you the next 100,000 yrs. Whut’s wrong wit dat?

  80. photon without a Higgs says:

    AccuWeather:

    Snow, Sleet in Florida Signal Arrival of More Damaging Arctic Outbreak…sub-freezing temperatures along the Gulf Coast…

    http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2010-01-09_20:30

  81. twawki says:

    Global warming causing untold deaths through redirection of funds for poor and sick to AGW gravy train;

    http://twawki.com/2010/01/09/free-money/

  82. lmg says:

    “1. The most simple solution would be off course to launch a few nukes, you don’t need a full exchange of the nuclear stockpile.”

    You only need a single nuke if you target the next International Climate Conference.

  83. photon without a Higgs says:

    rbateman (18:26:54) :

    there’s been three more aftershocks, 3.0 to 4.5 range, since my comment

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/special/California_Nevada_eqs.php

    Does anyone here understand earthquakes and aftershocks? Is this many aftershocks normal?

  84. andersm says:

    Human history amply demonstrates every time we attempt to intervene in the natural world to solve a problem only we perceive, it turns to disaster. Introduced species, managing the environment in Yellowstone are just two examples. Save us from do-gooders!

  85. Benjamin says:

    Artificial trees… Genius! Pure genius!

    But I suggest we launch these into space, to better soak up CO2 from THE greatest source, the Sun. The idea here is that since the Sun is thought to be the greatest factor affecting global temperatures, it must emit an awful lot of CO2 (for the time being anyway) (and think of all the money we’d save in not having to think up and test a new hypothesis! Carbon credit traders rejoice!)

    And since we’re so into bio-engineering these days, why not take it to the next level while we still can? Create and breed a new animal called a woc. The woc would soak up all the farts left behind (well, I guess so, huh?) by it’s more primitive cousin, the cow…

  86. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ photon without a Higgs (19:05:50) :

    rbateman (18:26:54) :

    there’s been three more aftershocks, 3.0 to 4.5 range, since my comment

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/special/California_Nevada_eqs.php

    Does anyone here understand earthquakes and aftershocks? Is this many aftershocks normal?

    There’s been a dozen or more aftershocks. Fairly common in that area. They are not far from the subduction zone off the coast, and I’d say that’s what is going on. A little plate movement. Could be more, maybe bigger later on. There’s some pretty good imaging of the area in Google Earth of the seafloor there. Check the box for Earthquakes in the Gallery.

  87. lmg says:

    “Waterways leading to Berlin have started to freeze, impeding coal and oil deliveries…”

    Coming soon: Ice breakers on the Danube.

  88. DirkH says:

    “latitude (18:44:43) :

    The mini ice age starts here

    David Rose
    Mail online

    Looks like Mojib Latif becomes more of a lukewarmer now. Nice to see the Daily Mail mention his work.

  89. MarkG says:

    “Does anyone here understand earthquakes and aftershocks? Is this many aftershocks normal?”

    I was in Italy during the earthquakes last year; we we having large aftershocks for about a week afterwards.

  90. amicus curiae says:

    Phillip-B s post is a ripper.
    a much older and wiser mentor of mine here in Aus pointed out that pumping sea water to the inland salt plains would imitate nature brilliantly.
    why?
    Because everytime the inland floods and the moisture is available, the rest of Aus gets decent rains and if its kept that way we wouldn’t get the dust storms that the summer winds create just after the lakes dry up.
    and from the looks of it, a double bonus by selling the salt to the UK to apply on the roads.
    Hmm? do you have issues after the snows go? with roadside vegetation dying of salt excesses?

  91. Mike McMillan says:

    lmg (16:20:50) :
    I propose the US unilaterally resume above-ground nuclear weapons tests. This would cause the Russians to do the same. This in turn would cause all the loonies currently freaking out about global warming to freak out about background radiation instead, leaving the earth to regulate its own temperature unmolested.

    It would also increase the aerosols, à la proposal #8 above. Admittedly, the aerosols wouldn’t be sulphates (strontium90ates?).

  92. DJ Meredith says:

    NO NO NO!!!

    Everytime man “engineers” nature, we screw it up with unintended consequences that are, in the end, far worse than the original problem….if, as in this case, a problem even existed.

    Our gubbmint can’t manage a financial system that it Does have full control over…..and you wanna turn it loose on nature?? Sorry, but mankind is better left drawing pictures of hockey sticks and scaring each other.

  93. Back2bat says:

    The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)

    Men playing God, how can that turn out well?

  94. hunter says:

    Fertilizing the oceans could be very good for increasing marine productivity.

  95. Ralph says:

    >>None of the ideas are as daft as trying to reduce CO2 levels.

    Agreed. Windelecs will do nothing, apart from bringing civilisation to a halt. Here is a letter to the leader of the UK opposition (a confirmed Greenie).

    Mr David Cameron
    Conservative Party

    Re: Gambling on Climate Change – with OUR money.

    Sir,

    Regarding the Met Office’s complete inability to forecast seasonal weather and our current cold spell, Helen Chivers of the Met Office has been quoted in all the media as saying, ‘we have to remember that this is very new – it is a developing science. These are not forecasts you can judge (rely on)’.

    So the Met Office cannot reliably forecast three months ahead, but somehow it CAN accurately forecast 40 years ahead and predict that we are all going to fry in a northern European desert. Three-month forecasts are a ‘developing science’, while for multi-decadal forecasts the ‘science is settled’. Spotted the paradox yet?

    This would all me mighty humorous were it not for that fact that Gordon Brown is gambling £200 or £400 billion of our money (my money) on the outside chance that the Met Office can get decadal forecasting correct, when they manifestly cannot get seasonal forecasting right. And this from a government minister who lost several billion of our money on a gold-price bet, and several trillion on a debt-bubble gamble.

    And the really sad thing, is that you support this insane policy. Still looking for photo opportunities with huskies? Perhaps you should try sledging Surrey or Kent next time, there is more snow there.

    And as I said previously, Brown’s £200 billion dash for wind will only succeed in bringing the country to its knees anyway. The recent cold weather was caused by a high pressure system and a few slack lows, none of which produced any significant wind across the entire NW of Europe. Here is the Irish Sea wind data for the last 2 weeks. Anything below 5 knots is not producing any wind power, so just when you need extra power, the windelecs will stop working. Marvelous.

    http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/getimage.php?from=20091223&span=6&code=5

    And don’t you dare say we can have fossil fuel backup systems, because if you do you are proposing a tripling of energy costs and precious little reduction in CO2. Backup fossil fuel plants would have to be held on spinning standby – burning and turning – just in case the wind dropped (same for tidal power). Besides, the variable nature of wind power gives grid overloads, underloads and frequency mismatches that have brought the Spanish electrical grid to the point of collapse on many occasions.

    How wind power can take down the entire electrical grid.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article384768.ece?token=null&offset=12

    Is this your future for Britain? Numerous hourly blackouts, several weeks without power, the nation reduced to the Stone Age, and hundreds of thousands of people dying? You think I am kidding? I write this email in the dark, as the power has been off here for 7 hours. The house is gently returning to ambient temperatures (-5oc), as the heating is off, and my sole power supply is one candle and a failing battery in my laptop. In 24 hours, I would be asking for government assistance, along with several thousand of my neighbours. And what will you do then, my windelec-hugging friend? Thought this one through at all, have we?

    How nations go back to the Stone Age inside 24 hours.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

    Sincerely,
    Ralph

  96. Dave Wendt says:

    What i always find amazing about all these wonderful geo-engineering plans is how little actual engineering seems to be applied to any of them. It appears that all that is necessary is a sufficiently harebrained idea, a few back of the envelope level calculations, a couple well placed press releases, and of course the requisite grant requests. Consideration of the unintended consequences, which for most of these proposals would seem to be much more negative than any possible benefit they could offer under even the most optimistic scenarios, doesn’t seem to even occur to them. If we want more sulfates in the atmosphere, all that is really necessary is to repeal all the clean air legislation that has been passed in the last forty years to get rid of the pollution that was one of the previous scare scenarios we’ve been forced to deal with. These folks blithely speculate on lofting into space quantities of material that are orders of magnitude beyond what has been done by all the launches since Sputnik first flew. In a world of infinite resources, some of these projects are at least theoretically possible but given that we can’t come close to any confidence that any of them would actually work, that they would involve expenses well beyond any possible benefit, that even if the costs didn’t disqualify them the unintended negative consequences surely would, that the problem they are meant to address is becoming an increasingly unlikely probability, investing any public money in pursuing them further is an almost criminal waste.

  97. Roger Knights says:

    Beano for Bossie?

  98. David Corcoran says:

    Not one of these are ideas are as wacky as burying trees:

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/landfill-forests-47051404

  99. SEQUOIA says:

    [snip - sorry, while funny, just of bit OTT]

  100. Baa Humbug says:

    To mitigate climate change the following is absolutely positively foolproof. I give a personal guarantee that it will work.

    thankyou

  101. rbateman says:

    Walking the line on the San Andreas Fault. 4.5 in San Jose on the 4th of Jan, and this 6.5 off the coast of Eureka. This is where the San Andreas turns out to sea. Aftershocks can go on for weeks, or be the portent of a rarer bigger one. At least with Earthquakes, we know how they act, we just can’t predict the patterns or why. Too bad about climate, 20-30 years squandered in Search of Global Warming tales. If we only knew about Climate and Earthquakes what we know about Volcanoes. Someday, at least if we can keep the Frankenstein Monster experiments under lock & key, we will.

  102. rbateman says:

    David Corcoran (21:03:24) :

    Oh, but we are burying trees. Ancient plants & trees turned to hydrocarbons, then made into plastics, buried in landfills everywhere.

  103. E.M.Smith says:

    rbateman (18:26:54) : there’s been three more aftershocks, 3.0 to 4.5 range, since my comment[...] Does anyone here understand earthquakes and aftershocks? Is this many aftershocks normal?

    Well, for starters, you don’t know if these are aftershocks or foreshocks…

    I had a geology class where we went over this in some depth. I, of course, took the bait and asked how you could tell which was which. The answer was “they are all aftershocks… until you get a bigger one, then they were foreshocks.”

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=1&faqID=99

    I especially like this phrasing:

    “Foreshock” and “aftershock” are relative terms. Foreshocks are earthquakes which precede larger earthquakes in the same location. Aftershocks are smaller earthquakes which occur in the same general area during the days to years following a larger event

    So, yes, you can have swarms of aftershocks for days. Or weeks. Or months. Or even years. Unless they become foreshocks. Or a main shock. Or not…

    Isn’t science wonderful ;-)

  104. photon without a Higgs says:

    hunter (20:41:04) :

    <i.Fertilizing the oceans could be very good for increasing marine productivity.

    I know these things start off with good intentions. But really, IMO, man just isn’t smart enough to try to engineer Nature. Mankind does not even understand Nature. So how can Mankind think he knows ways to improve something he does not understand?

    This lecture by Michael Crichton makes some good points about man trying to improve Nature. I hope you find it worth your time:

    53 minute video in Google Video

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795753336403393538&hl=en#

  105. Bill Tuttle says:

    This is truly scary, putting serious stuff in the hands of these religious fanatics who are convinced we’re already in a runaway greenhouse hell.

    The folks advocating those ideas are only interested in seeing if their theories work. They couldn’t care less about the consequences — they just want to know if what they think will happen actually happens.

    Many years ago, I knew a welder who worked on the tower for the Trinity Project. He told me the physicists were placing bets on whether or not the explosion would result in a chain reaction that would would ignite the atmosphere, and evidently they put the odds at 50-50.

    He also said the ones who were betting on the worst-case scenario were pretty eager to see if it would actually happen, just to satisfy their curiosity.

  106. Baa Humbug says:

    Remember the CO2 filters on Apollo 13?

    I reckon all alarmists should install these on their rooftops, strap em on to their car roofs, even smaller versions worn as hats etc whilst they’re out doing their power walks.

    They can hold “Earth Picnics”. Their kiddies running around with CO2 scrubbing toy windmills.

    They can spend 1day per week with NO power, there’s 14% saved.

    It’s all easy when you put your mind to it :)

    Now wheres my grants?

  107. Kath says:

    but… but… “they” are already doing atmospheric experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

  108. Galen Haugh says:

    photon without a Higgs (19:05:50) :

    Does anyone here understand earthquakes and aftershocks? Is this many aftershocks normal?

    Reply: Forces in the earth build until they reach the breaking point and an earthquake is the manifestation. These forces are generally from the relative motion of the major plates that make up the mosaic of plate tectonics–as these plates collide or move past one another, they do so irregularly because none of the plate edges are lubricated. Typically the strongest individual quake will occure in the first several and it dies down after that because the stresses have been relieved so subsequent quakes are generally less intense.

    After a long while, measured in months or years or even decades, the stresses build up again until the forces overcome the strength of the rock along the plane of greatest stress again, resulting in another series of earthquakes.

    Earthquakes are unpredictable because, even while forces are somewhat constant, configurations vary greatly and include a number of factors such as different rock types, structural complexities, triggering mechanisms (internal and external) and so forth, associated with seismic zones. Some earthquakes have abundant aftershocks and some don’t; they all differ to some degree. However, there are generally more and bigger aftershocks after a significant quake like the one just reported than smaller quakes, obviously. I think we’ve probably seen the last big earthquake for a while, at least around that epicenter.

  109. Bill Tuttle says:

    Number 8. Release microparticles into the atmosphere at the rate of 1 million metric tons a year through the use of jumbo jets and military artillery.

    Heh. Max ordinate (the highest the shell will reach) for a 155mm howitzer (the largest artillery piece still in common use) is about 16,000 feet. In order to get the microparticles into the upper atmosphere using artillery, they’ll have to fire them from the jumbo jets…

  110. DonK31 says:

    First: Do no harm.

  111. M. Simon says:

    Cold stuns Florida:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_re_us/us_winter_weather

    Across Florida, the weather was freakishly cold for a state that’s a winter respite for so many. There were snow flurries spotted in several parts of the state, as far south as Naples on the gulf coast. In Miami, the temperature was forecast to drop just below freezing overnight and threatened to break the record for low temperatures in the city.

    In suburban Atlanta, which has seen an unusually long stretch of low temperatures, two teens died Saturday after falling through the ice on a partially frozen pond. The surviving teen was in fair condition at Gwinnett Medical Center, said hospital spokeswoman Andrea Wehrmann.

    The two boys who died were in the frigid water for nearly an hour before rescuers could reach them, said Gwinnett County Fire and Emergency Services Capt. Tommy Rutledge. He said the three, ages 13 to 15, were playing and sliding on the semi-frozen pond when the ice broke.

    And

    An ice jam along the Mississippi River prompted the National Weather Service to issue a flood warning for southwest Illinois and northeast Missouri. The weather service said the river was near the 16-foot flood stage in Hannibal, Mo., on Saturday.

    And the ferry that serves as the only connection between western Kentucky and eastern Missouri was shut down Saturday afternoon because of ice in the harbor and Mississippi River. Kentucky Department of Transportation spokesman Keith Todd said with temperatures expected to remain below freezing, operations for the Dorena-Hickman Ferry would be evaluated daily to decide when the crossing can resume.

    Amtrak said some trains between Chicago and Denver and between St. Paul, Minn., and Seattle wouldn’t operate Saturday and Sunday because of cold, high winds and drifting snow.

  112. rbateman says:

    E.M.Smith (21:47:39) :

    Fascinating. I am humbolted, or should I say…shocked.

  113. rbateman says:

    Bill Tuttle (21:54:10) :

    That is truly scary, only in this case they are proposing applying a vector force to a chaotic system that they don’t have the slightest idea of what is currently intending to do, to which once applied, they have even less of an idea of how to undo the uninended consequences.

    I cannot see how there will be no harm. It will certainly do great damage somewhere, and maybe to too many somewheres. It may even unwind whatever cycles are in play and send the whole climate system on a violent rampage.
    All this over a concocted stunt.

  114. D. King says:

    Nothing to worry about. What could go wrong?
    I like the whole plankton, bottom of the food chain thingy.

  115. John Doe says:

    Let’s build a huge heat pipe. Heat pipes are systems that use evaporation and gravitation to create a cooler. These are used extensively, for example, in computer coolers. See more http://www.heatpipe.com/heatpipes.htm

    If we think about building a cooler/thermostat for Earth, we need huge amounts of a liquid that removes heat from the surface by evaporating at Earthly temperatures. Water is a good candidate for that because it rises up naturally and condenses to clouds and rains back to surface. Obviously we could use oceans as our super cooler, especially because of its price – zero.

    If you think that oceans are not large enough for our purpose, we can find a place in Eastern Africa, the East Africa’s Great Rift, where evaporation is high and the land is below sea lever. See http://geology.com/articles/east-africa-rift.shtml. Now, to geoengineer something you can build a canal (with power turbines .-)) from the sea to get water in.

  116. Michael says:

    Dr. Jasper Kirkby Explains Chemtrails

  117. philincalifornia says:

    lmg (18:49:34) :
    “1. The most simple solution would be off course to launch a few nukes, you don’t need a full exchange of the nuclear stockpile.”

    You only need a single nuke if you target the next International Climate Conference.
    ********************

    I’m not very well-versed in nuclear warfare. Is the 14C02 generated in such a reaction from the errrmm “substrate” ??

    If so, it would be peculiarly ironic if we were to confirm the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere of 9 – 12 years, literally using Hansen et al.

  118. J.Hansford says:

    Tenuc (15:29:43) :

    None of the ideas are as daft as trying to reduce CO2 levels. We know this one won’t have any effect at all!
    —————————————————————-

    LoL….. Touche`

  119. Julian Flood says:

    I have been suprised, when this subject came up before and this time, by the hostile reaction to geo-engineering proposals. They may not be a good idea in themselves, but the idea of them may be useful: let me explain.

    Take a political party with all its little would-be leaders jostling for position. For decades now the place to be has been the warmists camp, trumping each others proposals with ever more ludicrous bids — “we’ll build ten windmills a year, we’ll cut carbon by ten percent, we’ll build fifty, cut by twenty, hundreds, eighty percent…” And on and on. But there are power-hungry people in the party who are waiting to see, as the cracks appear in the AGW facade, whether they can leverage it into a new appeal to the electorate.

    You are not going to get rid of politicians — fun though it is to claim you want to hang them, they will just be replaced by new ones — but we might be able to turn them away from their anti-civilisation, starve-in-the-dark ideas. Give the underdogs, the one who were too late on the AGW bandwagon, a reason for stiopping the ludicrous bidding war and we might buy enough time for the science to correct itself. Having gone from an initial trusting soul who thought the scientists were onto something, I’ve now reached full dissenter stage where I don’t even know if the Earth has warmed at all. Politicians need time to go through the same process. We need to buy time.

    Any proposed bio-engineering solution must be as cheap as possible — remember that if this really is pseudo-science then any money spent is effectively wasted — easily reversible and quick. Salter and Latham’s ships use seawater in tiny amounts compared with the natural processes which move spray into the boundary layer, and if you don’t like the results you just turn them off. In a week the salt particles fall out and you won’t be able to tell that they were there. The tiny amounts of salt will do no harm to anything because the oceans are already pumping millions of tons into the air anyway, it’s where you place your ship that makes the difference.

    Imagine the calculation if you were a politician (no insult intended, it’s just a pretend — I’d not like to insinuate that anyone here would really stoop so low). You can’t get any higher without some of those above you getting knifed in the back. The wheels are coming off the global warming bus, but people are still scared by all the propaganda they’ve been subjected to over the years. Here’s the solution: put cap and trade, emission ceilings etc on hold for a few years while you check the science and, just to be on the safe side, we’ll build a confirmation-of-concept prototype cloud ship. You can even tell the warmistas, who will shriek, that it’s just an application of the precautionary principle, just in case those other countries you don’t trust are planning to cheat on their emissions.

    Result? Trillions saved, budgets balanced, new leverage, a place at the top table. And when the sceince comes in and says that climate sensitivity is about .6 degrees, that much of the warming has been caused by oil pollution/UHI effect/solar changes/stochastic movement of ocean currents then you will be the greatest politician of the last fifty years, a world statesman, praised by all humanity.

    Give the little weasels the chance to see this prize. It will save millions from poverty and starvation, stop governments helping themselves from your wallet in the name of dubious science and will cost pennies.

    What’s not to like?

    JF

  120. J.Hansford says:

    photon without a Higgs (21:48:41) :

    hunter (20:41:04) :

    <i.Fertilizing the oceans could be very good for increasing marine productivity.

    I know these things start off with good intentions. But really, IMO, man just isn’t smart enough to try to engineer Nature. Mankind does not even understand Nature. So how can Mankind think he knows ways to improve something he does not understand?
    ————————————————————-
    Photon without a Higgs…… We improve upon nature all the time. The point is, that we should do it for OUR benefit.

    This is why these airy fairy ideas won't work…. They don't actually benefit. If spreading iron on the sea made commercial sense for indutrialization of a certain fishery….. We would do it…. Should do it.

    Effects would become apparent, harm minimization would be implemented, usually because the harm impacts both the industry and people…. The practice would then continue in it's new improved form for as long as a benefit was extracted cost effectively.

    Agriculture would be one such example… Man was smart enough clearing land, adding minerals, exctracting a continuous food supply. Nature didn't fall in a heap when we did that:-)

    Nature isn't a thing…. It's an environmental set of changable conditions determined by circumstance.

  121. anna v says:

    If they have to geo engineer, number 9, cloud generation with the ship from the ocean, gets my vote, because it can be stopped on a penny, nothing irreversible.

  122. Michael says:

    I have one question for you Mr Gibbs. Do you know, that we know, that every word coming out of your mouth is BUll [snip]?

    Gibbs: Worldwide Record Cold Result of Climate Change
    http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/01/robert-gibbs-worldwide-record-cold-is.html

  123. wesley bruce says:

    They’re not as crazy as claimed.
    Canberra Australia had contrail sowing going on in the week before Copenhagen. It seemed quite effective and must have been paid for by someone. It was probably not the government; they claimed to know nothing.
    Sulfur compounds are not the only seeding agents being tested there are bacteria and sugar peptides molecules that seed clouds. There were a half dozen proposed combinations. Now they’re being tested.

    The marine Iron fertilisation is on the same scale and cost as farm fertilization and there are a dozen funded studies. It doubles fish yields and has no detectable adverse ecological effects. Greenhouse may be a non problem but certainly in the case of marine fertilization it looks like a winner. The key is to come up with an Iron dispenser that fits into a fishing trawler and dispensed a little ‘seed’ plankton and perhaps fry with the iron. This turns the open ocean fisheries onto a protein farming system. The largest problem is that we still have a neo-Marxist law of the sea that disallows the ownership of marine properties. If such sea steading and private fisheries were allowed we would have a lot more food very quickly. I’m in the sea steading institute and various space societies. Big projects are possible if your creative and have rights on the wealth produced.

  124. richard111 says:

    Just a thought. There was a lot of shipping sunk in the sea during WW11.
    There was a period of cooling soon after. Any connection?

  125. kadaka says:

    mike sphar (18:18:17) :

    We better hope that the SETI search results in a colonizable and reachable alternative. As this cosmic neighborhood may be heading for serious trouble in a short time.

    Since SETI is looking for intelligent life, what do you want? A world we can colonize after getting rid of the native intelligent life, or one we could colonize because the intelligent life died off after sending the signals thus saving us the hassle?

    Neither case seems good, and we should avoid any planet we get such broadcast signals from. Except for certain simple extinction events in the second case like a plague, it seems likely that any intelligent species technologically advanced enough to broadcast such signals, will likely have used up all the nice resources by the time we get there, provided at some point they weren’t made unobtainable by chemical or nuclear pollution.

    This prediction is based on the historical record of all known radio-broadcasting intelligent species.

  126. Bill Tuttle says:

    Benjamin (19:22:03) :
    Create and breed a new animal called a woc. The woc would soak up all the farts left behind (well, I guess so, huh?) by it’s more primitive cousin, the cow…

    A woc isn’t a genetically-engineered animal — a woc is something you thwow at a wabbit…

  127. John Wright says:

    ALLEN CICHANSKI (16:11:30),

    You’ve heard of latent heat, haven’t you? All I hope is we are just going through a phase of latent stupidity, which I hope means that people are about to wisen up. Just needs a bit more time for the delayed reaction to kick in?

  128. artwest says:

    Bruce Cobb: (replying to:”Politicians need a way out.”)

    They have one – the door. Many will be booted out it come election time.

    —————-

    Unfortunately in the UK, as in most countries of the world, there are no mainstream parties i.e. likely to get into power, which are not completely sold on AGW.

  129. LIFE Moto says:

    I hope that there are solutions after the Copenhagen Climate conference.

  130. I’ll agree that implementing any of these ideas today is pretty stupid. Almost as stupid as planting 2.5 wind turbines in the sea off britain every DAY at the end of the next decade. In 5 or 10 years time, we’ll have a better idea of where the climate might be going (if it is indeed changing significantly) and some of the more controllable concepts might be valuable, say we had a big mirror which could be deployed only at mid-day in heatwave locations.
    Costing these alternative solutions is an ideal way to put a cap on the cost which could be deemed acceptable to provide a fix by enforced energy poverty. If it is cheaper to build this fleet of 1500 cloud forming ships than some white elephant windfarm – is that really a bad thing? It might have bad side effects, but equally we might be able to mitigate the effects of droughts. If the argument is ‘we must do something, just in case’, why not do something which could be useful. Who knows, cloud forming might even help if it ends up getting cooler, only the clouds would be needed at the poles.

  131. Gregg E. says:

    Putting millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the air? That’s the stupidest of the lot. (It was also floated as a “solution” in one of the CRU e-mails.)

    Sulfur dioxide + water vapor + solar energy = sulfuric acid. Acid rain. But almost all rain and other water precipitation is mildly acidic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

    Lots of money and time have been spent over the past half century reducing SO2 emissions, and here’s some kooks wanting to deliberately spew millions of times more of it into the air.

  132. Jimbo says:

    We have had much higher levels of CO2 and temperatures in the past and the Earth stabilised itself without the help of man. Stop this insanity and remember the law of unintended consequences.

  133. P Gosselin says:

    For the readers in Britain:
    “German companies have won contracts worth more than €100 billion to build Britain’s planned network of offshore wind farms in the North Sea.”
    Read all about it:
    http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100109-24461.html
    Like it’s not enough to subsidise the industry, now you’re paying others to build it too! No wonder Ms Merkel is such a staunch green energy supporter.

  134. Jimbo says:

    I can also forecast more climate scam from people like Al Bore investing in companies willing to spray crap into the atmosphere, no joking :o(.

  135. Jean Parisot says:

    Better idea, why don’t we just find a baker’s dozen of unscrupulous “scientists”, maneuver them into key positions monitoring temperature, pay them well, and have them coordinate to manipulate the temperature data – this time we give them a secure communications back channel so they don’t get caught. Feasible?

  136. John says:

    “The real wacky idea is the belief that climate change is a problem in the first place – it isn’t.”

    No that is wrong, climate change IS a problem, witness the dying turtles in Florida and struggling wildlife in the UK. But it is not a change to warm that is a problem, but a change to cold!

    As for geo-engineering, all these proposed “solutions” should be resisted with all urgency, the environmentalists are right on this one. We know so little about climate and the ecosystem of the Earth that any of these interventions could have disasterous unknown un-anticipated outcomes. Like mild warming turning into a snowball earth, for example!

  137. Benjamin says:

    Bill Tuttle (00:33:45) : “A woc isn’t a genetically-engineered animal — a woc is something you thwow at a wabbit…”

    http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/node/2157

    Scwewy wabbit! Had it comin’… :-)

    wesley bruce (00:08:35) :

    I’ve read about that before, except without all the AGW spin attatched. It’s been a while, though, so I’ve no comment. Got any links?

  138. P Gosselin says:

    Sorry for being OT
    But this is interesting.
    One could devote an entire blog to the Mother of Meteorlogical Laughing Stocks – the MetOffice.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml

  139. JER0ME says:

    My predictions in order of likelihood:

    1. The temperature will stabilise for a few decades as it seem to after each warming bout. People will scream dire warning that the warming will continue, worse than before. This will be blamed on CO2. We will be taxed & our freedom (eg travel) curtailed).

    2. The warming will continue as it has since the little ice age. This will be blamed on CO2. We will be taxed & our freedom (eg travel) curtailed).

    3. The next (little, or even big) ice age will start because of the current solar minimum. This will be blamed on CO2. We will be taxed & our freedom (eg travel) curtailed).

    4. Someone will do something daft like these 10 barmy ideas. The climate will be affected. This will be blamed on CO2. We will be taxed & our freedom (eg travel) curtailed).

  140. Jack Simmons says:

    Not to worry about any of these schemes.

    Imagine the environmental impact statements one would have to write to cover any of these ideas, if attempted?

    AGW is not promoted to provide backing for any programs designed to actually fix a problem. It is designed to set up a scheme of carbon trading on manipulated markets. People pulling the strings; Goldman Sachs, Al Gore, etc., would make billions. Not to worry about whether this actually fixes anything, the insiders will make money.

    The generation and trading of derivatives on the financial markets is the principal cause of the current financial depression. The collapse of the dollar is not a business event; it is a monetary event. Trillions fed into our financial systems in an attempt to cover people’s failed bets, based on complicated computer models of financial instruments. These instruments were not meant to be traded in open markets. The ‘fair’ value was to have been determined by computer models. Only problem is, no one was buying anyone else’s derivatives. After all, the programmer gets to set the parameters of the derivative, and who is he to tell us what the parameters should be? No real independent verification of these starting parameters.

    See the parallels?

    Global circulation models were based on a set of unproven assumptions. Everyone was to have accepted the results of these models and the next set of computer models for trading carbon offsets was all set, with fat boys sitting at the controls.

    Only fly in the ointment was mother Nature’s stubbornness in refusing to be modeled. She stuck to her own, apparently secret parameters and non-linear, chaotic processes.

    Some of us actually insisted on looking at real world thermometers and the jig was up.

    What interesting times we live in.

  141. Roger Knights says:

    My favorite among the above is this plan, which could be shut down if bad consequences were noticed, and which could be valuable even apart from cooling the earth:

    Philip_B (16:46:30) :

    The best geo-engineering idea is to flood the Qatar (Qattara) depression [in Libya]. This would reduce sea levels, increase Earth’s albedo (more clouds and a large area of reflective water) and generate huge quantities of carbon free electricity.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q771849×20120898/

  142. Ron de Haan says:

    Climate Alarmism, Green energy, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Green Jobs and wacko Geo-engineering idea’s all serve the sick Green Ideology that is upon us.

    Green is the new Red. Watch your back.

  143. Roger Knights says:

    Philip_B: I just tested the link above and it doesn’t work.

  144. Foxgoose says:

    Hilarious piece in today’s (frozen)UK “Observer” (Guardian group Sunday):-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/climate-change-uk-big-freeze

    “The resurgence of El Niño means that 2010 could yet be the hottest year on record. Despite the big freeze Britain’s climate is getting distinctly warmer – and we may feel it this summer”

    I particularly enjoyed:-

    “….It is a bit like playing Pooh sticks, says Betts. “When you throw sticks off a bridge, you know they will all be swept downstream. You just don’t know which one will move the fastest. It is the same with climate and the weather…”

    I’m looking forward to Gavin Schmidt’s detailed ststistical proof of the Pooh Stick theory at Real Climate soon.

    (For mystified non-brits – Pooh Sticks is a game played by Christopher Robin and his friend Pooh Bear in the eponymous classicsl children’s books).

  145. Paul R says:

    Have the Cern Hadron Collider crank out a tiny black hole, it should bend the sunlight away from the face of the rest of the globe and warm Switzerland up a little bit. Or we’ll all be Swiss anyway and it won’t matter.

  146. vjones says:

    Actually #1 (Cows and Methane) is based on a misconception. Wrong end of the cow. They burp methane. There has been a lot of work done into researching the effect of diet (including adding garlic to cow’s diets; garlic flavoured milk anyone?). Apparently, as we have bred ‘better’ grass species (higher nitrogen content) and improved pasture, there have been unintended consequences.
    An article here makes some nice points (although wrapped up in the usual anti-intensivisation eco-rant): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/26/nhs-meat-menus-carbon

    We already have ocean fertilisation albeit at a coastal level, where it is called pollution, and yes phosphate seems to be the issue. France and UK last summer had problems with ‘green tides': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1207817/Coastal-wildlife-threatened-vast-seaweed-blooms-caused-hot-rainy-weather.html

    I agree with anna v (23:47:13) : and for the same reason – easy to stop.

  147. GP says:

    David Schnare (17:23:32) :

    “Geoengineering is an insurance policy …..

    It is the perfect insurance policy as it is only used if needed. ….”

    “the perfect insurance policy” has to be an oxymoron.

  148. Richard S Courtney says:

    Bruce Cobb (17:02:21) :
    and
    Steve in SC (17:24:40) :

    You dispute my point; viz.
    Richard S Courtney (16:07:31) :
    People here are missing the point.
    Politicians need a way out.

    And Bruce Cobb states the dispute clearly, saying
    “They have one – the door. Many will be booted out it come election time.”

    But, as artwest (00:43:04) says;
    “Unfortunately in the UK, as in most countries of the world, there are no mainstream parties i.e. likely to get into power, which are not completely sold on AGW.”

    Importantly, politicians can – and will – introduce harmful AGW policies before they are “booted out”. And the effects of such policies last. For example, few now remember the ‘acid rain’ scare (unless reminded of it) but it caused the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) in the EU. The beaurocracy that was established to run the LCPD has to justify its existence so keeps tightening its emission constraints for no scientific reason. The latest constraints are causing closure of the UK’s coal-fired power stations.

    BarryW (17:39:35) makes a good point in a humorous way:

    He says;
    “Hippie is standing on a street corner snapping his fingers. Man walks up and asked what he’s doing. Hippie says, “Man, I’m keeping the tigers away!”
    Man say, “that’s crazy, there are no tigers around here!”
    Hippie answers “See, it works!”
    That’s all the politicians need to do.”

    Yes, supporting geo-engineering research is a way for the politicians to ‘snap their fingers’.

    Julian Flood (23:34:29) goes to the crux of the issue and he gives a good explanation of how and why the geo-engineering ploy provides a political ‘way out’. He clearly and succincltly explains what I have been trying to say. And I thank him for that.

    Richard

  149. Vincent says:

    Richard Courtney,

    In your post you wrote that policy makers need to be “seen to do something” vis a vis AGW. Your analysis however, is predicated on the premise that these policy makers are motivated by rational thinking. Unfortunately, evidence to date contradicts the “rational thinking” hypothesis.

    If policy makers (UK) are making a rational decision to appear to be “doing something” why did they pass the Climate Change Bill last year, making the UK the only country in the world to pass into law binding CO2 reduction targets? Why are heavy energy industries now required to report to the Secretary of State on their plans to mitigate CO2? This has more in common with the way the USSR economy was run under Stalin, with strategic industries commanded by commisars.

    If there are some instances of policy makers “appearing to do something” for politcal expediency, they may perhaps be found in the continental EU. In the UK, policy makers appear to manifest the same ideological fanaticism as did the old Soviet Bolsheviks. Now that is something to be alarmed about.

  150. Butch says:

    Whoa! It’s one thing for politicians to try to extract money and power from the AGW con, it’s quite another thing to let people actually try and “fix” an imaginary problem.

  151. Veronica says:

    Ydon’t think that perhaps this post was trying to be um… iron-ic?

    I think it is a good idea to reduce our fossil fuel use. Not because it will make much difference to global average temperature because it probably won’t. But because fossil fuel is going to become expensive as it gets taxed / runs out / is held back by the wacky countries that own it.

    There are simple things we could do. I was at a meeting in Miami in November where it was almost 80F outside but the meeting room was airconned down so cold that we had to go running for our sweaters.

    In the end, individual householders and companies will try to save fossil fuels because they hurt our pockets.

    And what’s with the outbreak of grocer’s apostrophes on this site today. Crab’s but not lobster’s? AND DON’T SHOUT AT ME!

    I loved the idea that sunken shipping might encourage algal bloom. Nice idea! But we don’t want to do it deliberately and turn our oceans into plankton soup do we? It would stink for one thing, when it dies and rots and covers the beaches with slime.

  152. Martin Brumby says:

    Some rib tickling wacky ideas. And some hilarious comments, as usual.

    But perhaps the funniest thing (if you can still raise a smile) is the fact that almost without exception WE are paying the salaries and index-linked pension plans for the sub-prime “scientists” who produce this drivel.

  153. Wyatt says:

    For the record, I think we will have totally clean hydrogen long before we ever face extinction from co2. And it’s obvious now climate scientists exaggerated co2’s effects by a thousand %. Since we’re all being kind of silly here, how about co2 scrubbers on Antarctica? Nuclear reactors could power refrigeration equipment to freeze co2 out of the air. Refrigeration equip. wouldn’t need much more help reaching -128 C or whatever co2 freezes at. How hard would it be to encase it in ice? I think this would be far less dangerous than any of the other scenarios.

    I saw a reflector solar farm in Spain that boiled water to make electricicity to convert water to hydrogen. That seems cheaper than the wealth transfer we face now sending our money to the Sauds et al.

  154. Richard S Courtney says:

    Vincent (03:25:01) :

    You say to me:

    “In your post you wrote that policy makers need to be “seen to do something” vis a vis AGW. Your analysis however, is predicated on the premise that these policy makers are motivated by rational thinking. Unfortunately, evidence to date contradicts the “rational thinking” hypothesis.”

    No, my analysis is based on the need of politicians to get votes. It is not – repeat, not – “predicated on the premise that these policy makers are motivated by rational thinking”.

    As I said at (16:07:31):
    “Politicians need a way out. They have ‘nailed their colours to the mast’ of AGW. And the AGW scare is coming to an end.
    But politicians cannot say they were wrong to have supported AGW because that would lose them votes. And they cannot be seen to be doing nothing in response to the AGW scare that they have said is a serious threat because that would lose them votes. So, they have to be seen to be doing something.
    It is plain silly to say that the politicians need do nothing in response to the AGW scare. They have to be seen to be doing something while – in reality – doing nothing otherwise they will lose votes. And votes are their most important concern.”

    Votes are a matter of survival for politicians. “Rational thinking” only has a vlaue to them in so far as it assists them getting votes, and it is an irrelevance to their need to be seen to be doing something in rsponse to the AGW scare.

    Indeed, I agree with you when you say to me:
    “If there are some instances of policy makers “appearing to do something” for politcal expediency, they may perhaps be found in the continental EU. In the UK, policy makers appear to manifest the same ideological fanaticism as did the old Soviet Bolsheviks. Now that is something to be alarmed about.”

    That “ideological fanaticism” concerning AGW is promoted by all three of the UK’s major political parties and is the antithesis of “rational thinking”.

    Richard

  155. Mercurior says:

    law of unintended consequences comes to mind

    IF we do use these to cool the earth, how do we know they arent going to cool it further than we can cope with.

  156. Gail Combs says:

    mikelorrey (16:38:01) :

    “Better yet, paint your walkway white…”

    Don’t laugh Obama wants all of us to paint our roofs white. I am all for it if he pay out of his own pocket and out of Al Gore’s and not the tax payers. But then I am in the south and stuck with a black roof and not the white roof I wanted. On the other hand I have not turned the heat on very much in the winter.

    hey, I have a better idea paint the roofs white in the spring and black in the fall and safe bundles on heating and cool as well as moderating the climate. and it is ALL reversible!

  157. Mercurior says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_The_Earth_Caught_Fire

    i suggest we do this in reverse He asks Jeannie to obtain any information that could help him. It soon becomes clear that the earth has been shifted from its orbit and is moving closer to the sun; increasing heat has caused water to evaporate and mists to cover Britain

    set off enough nukes to shift the planet..

  158. DirkH says:

    “Wyatt (04:24:40) :

    For the record, I think we will have totally clean hydrogen long before we ever face extinction from co2. And it’s obvious now climate scientists exaggerated co2’s effects by a thousand %. Since we’re all being kind of silly here, how about co2 scrubbers on Antarctica? Nuclear reactors could power refrigeration equipment to freeze co2 out of the air. Refrigeration equip. wouldn’t need much more help reaching -128 C or whatever co2 freezes at.”

    Temperatures in Antarctica can get colder than the boiling point of CO2. But the partial pressure of CO2 in air is so low that CO2 doesn’t condense out of the air.

  159. 3x2 says:

    John Doe (23:26:07) :

    Let’s build a huge heat pipe.

    Can’t see that one working – where would you put it for a start. Why.. it would have to be built on the equator or some such place. Where would you get the energy to prime it? How would you switch it on and off?

    No, I’m going with designing some kind of machine that uses sunlight or something to capture CO2 and maybe even produce something useful at the same time. We are almost at the working prototype stage, just delayed a little while decide what colour it should be.

    Julian Flood (23:34:29) :

    You make some very good points but, as every peer reviewed analysis shows, hanging politicians is not nearly as efficient as the National Razor.

  160. Gail Combs says:

    Philip_B (16:46:30) :

    “The best geo-engineering idea is to flood the Qatar (Qattara) depression. This would reduce sea levels, increase Earth’s albedo (more clouds and a large area of reflective water) and generate huge quantities of carbon free electricity….”

    Now that is an idea I would be willing to support.
    I wonder what that would do to the humidity in the area. Would it help make the desert bloom? Perhaps add desalinization plants too. I seem to recall reading some where that trees modified the environment enough that planting desert hardy species allowed reclaiming of desert land or at least there are those who believe they do.
    http://www.funkdesigns.com/desert/

  161. DirkH says:

    “P Gosselin (01:58:53) :

    For the readers in Britain:
    “German companies have won contracts worth more than €100 billion to build Britain’s planned network of offshore wind farms in the North Sea.”
    Read all about it:
    http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100109-24461.html
    Like it’s not enough to subsidise the industry, now you’re paying others to build it too! No wonder Ms Merkel is such a staunch green energy supporter.”

    Finally our plans are coming to fruition. Gnniiiarrrharrrharrr.

    What did you expect? The UK comes second to a market where german companies have been selling product for ten years now. Our accumulated expertise is a barrier for entry into this market by newcomers. Your best bet would have been to buy a german wind turbine maker like Suzlon did with Repower. Usually our companies are terribly undervalued compared to US startups.

    This Gordon Brown and Milliband appear like complete dolts to me.

  162. Spector says:

    Perhaps the real danger is that some ‘well meaning’ group of scientists might develop a plan that really *does* work and getting out of control, removes 95% of the CO2 from the atmosphere causing worldwide crop failures and the next ice age.

  163. son of mulder says:

    Slightly OT but lots of related buttons are pressed in this article from today’s Sunday Times.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece

  164. P Wilson says:

    Yes I agree they are bananas – these so called scientists. I remember similar proposed methods in the 1970’s such as putting soot on arctic ice to accept more heat from the sun. What is interesting is ocean heat – pielke, Hansen and other fake scientists theorise as though the only heat entering the oceans was from the atmosphere when in the main, its directly from solar energy. It would therefore be necessary to place huge reflecting mirrors into space to block a proportion of sunlight, in order to enhance the global cooling that would cause disease, starvation and misery.

  165. Vincent says:

    Richard Courtney,

    I think we are more or less in agreement. My point was that the UK government appear to be doing more than is strictly necessary to merely “appear to be doing something.” I do accept your point however, that they have already nailed their flag to the mast. With the 20/20 vision of hindsight, one wonders if they are now regretting their previous enthusiam to placate the gods of global warming apocalypse.

  166. rbateman says:

    It never was about saving the Planet, or the mindset that would want to do that. A blizzard is cold, but these proposed actions betray hearts and minds turned to stone.
    There can no good come out injecting things into the atmosphere that are known to wither life itself, or even to interject between the source of energy falling upon the planet and the inhabitants below of all species.
    In such thinking, life is a commodity to be bargained away.
    In the strangest irony of them all, life cannot be created in a test tube, but it certainly can be snuffed out by the contents therein.

  167. DirkH says:

    “P Wilson (05:53:24) :

    Any one heard of Professor Latif or Prof Tsonis ?

    Latif is based in Kiel, he’s been a warmer and on a lot of german TV chat shows. Recently he proclaimed that new models from his institue that incorporate ocean currents predict, well, about what you see now. He announced that before winter and before COP15 so he’s not saying that in hindsight.

    To conform with the dogma, he added: But after these 10 to 30 years of slight cooling we will see a fast rise of temperature again.

    I guess he just wants to go along with the Zeitgeist until he can retire; the cooling phase should suffice for that.

    The german politicians are still busy selling the UK useless wind turbines so all the parties still stand firm behind the AGW doctrine. It’s also popular with the people here; Germans like being taxed because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. The reasoning behind this is that it’s better for our children if we pay our debt now. Personally, i think my fellow germans are all crazy but as i’m not suffering terribly from the enormous energy prizes here i just pay that and mock the others for their total ineptitude.

  168. John Doe says:

    ” 3×2 (05:40:22) :

    John Doe (23:26:07) :

    Let’s build a huge heat pipe.

    Can’t see that one working – where would you put it for a start. Why.. it would have to be built on the equator or some such place. Where would you get the energy to prime it? How would you switch it on and off”

    Flooding the areas below the sea level could be a good starter: Qatar, East Africa, and so on. It is also useful to reduce the impact of urban heat island effect by adding canals, lakes, ponds and rivers to the city areas. It makes the habitat better as you can see when you visit Amsterdam.

    Energy is coming from the Sun and we don’t need heat pipe walls in the atmosphere. We get energy from the flooding water and evaporation creates fresh water using Sun’s energy.

  169. rbateman says:

    Spector (05:51:34) :

    In failing to consider the consequences to Life on the Planet, Life itself is measured to be of little value.
    When the success of the action is more important than the means chosen and/or the justification of the action, it is there that atrocities are borne.

  170. sHx says:

    I just did a cursary web research about the idea of flooding the Qattara Depression, and yes, I agree with earlier commenters that this ought to be looked into. It is perhaps the most viable of the wackiest ideas. It seems some serious thought has been put into it a long time ago.

    http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E0a.htm

  171. Gail Combs says:

    Roger Sowell (18:06:40) :

    “My suggestion is to use wind-generated power to irrigate in semi-arid lands. The incremental plant growth absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. Has the benefit of easily turning it off if or when the earth gets colder….”

    That is the best use for windmills, moving water, because the erratic nature of the wind doesn’t matter if you are pumping into a reservoir. If the reservoir is on the top of a hill you can use the water to generate electricity as well as for irrigation. If I had the money I would set up that type of system on my farm. I have the wind, water and a 100ft drop.

    Florida, producer of much of our fresh veggies, is freezing. On top of that as the Wall Street Journal noted:

    “California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America’s premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations….” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html

    In a nut shell irrigation is being banned in California farming areas. One of the other idiocies in California is the Scorched Earth policy that removes even more farmland from cultivation as well as requiring the bulldozing or poisoning of farm ponds used for irrigation.

    Testimony before the House of Representatives: (note the bill passed the house anyway)
    http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h071609/Peppler.pdf

    HR 2749: Food Safety’s Scorched Earth Policy: http://farmwars.info/?p=1284

    I was not kidding when I said in other comments, the USA is being set up for skyrocketing food prices and food shortages.

  172. DennisA says:

    Nothing new under the sun. There was an episode of the Simpsons where Mr Burns erected a giant sun shade to make the Springfield residents buy his nuclear power.

    But I think that was a cartoon…….

  173. DennisA says:

    Nothing new under the sun: Geo-engineering….to WARM UP the planet, in 1971

    These ideas are from From the book “Omega – Murder of the Eco-system and the Suicide of Man , Paul K Anderson, 1971, Controlling the Planet’s Climate
    J. 0. Fletcher (Rand corporation)

    POSSIBILITIES FOR DELIBERATELY INFLUENCING GLOBAL CLIMATE
    under certain conditions, only one kilogram of reagent can seed several square kilometres of cloud surface. It is estimated that it would take only sixty American C-5aircraft to deliver one kilogram per square kilometre per day over the entire Arctic Basin (10million square kilometres). Thus,it is a large but not impossible task to seed such enormous areas.

    ICE-FREE ARCTIC OCEAN
    The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice-free ocean.

    Three basic approaches have been proposed:
    (a) influencing the surface reflectivity of the ice to cause more absorption of solar heat;
    (b) large-scale modification of Arctic cloud conditions by seeding;
    (c) increasing the inflow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean

    BERING STRAIT DAM
    The basic idea is to increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by
    stopping or even reversing the present northward flow of colder Pacific water through the Bering Strait. The proposed dam would be 50 miles long and 150 feet high.

    DEFLECTING THE GULF STREAM
    Two kinds of proposals have been discussed, a dam between Florida and Cuba, and weirs extending out from Newfoundland across the Grand Banks to deflect the Labrador current as well as the Gulf Stream.

    DEFLECTING THE KUROSHIO CURRENT
    The Pacific Ocean counterpart of the Gulf Stream is the warm Kuroshio Current, a small branch of which enters the Sea of Japan and exits to the Pacific between the Japanese islands. It has been proposed that the narrow mouth of Tatarsk Strait, where a flood tide alternates with an ebb tide, be regulated by a giant one-way ‘water valve’ to increase the inflow of the warm Kuroshio Current to the Sea of Okhotsk and reduce the winter ice there.

    CREATION OF A SIBERIAN SEA
    Dams on the Ob, Yenisei and Angara rivers could create a lake east of the Urals that would be almost as large as the Caspian Sea. This lake could be drained southward to the Aral and Caspian Seas, irrigating a region about twice the area of the Caspian Sea. In terms of climatic effects, the presence of a large lake transforms the heat exchange between the surface and atmosphere.

    CREATION OF AFRICAN SEAS
    If the Congo, which carries some 1,200 cubic kilometres of water per year, were dammed at Stanley Canyon (about 1 mile wide), it would impound an enormous lake (the Congo Sea). The Ubangi, a tributary of the Congo, could then flow to the north-west, joining the; Chari and flowing into Lake Chad, which would grow to enormous size (over 1 million square kilometres).

    NAWAPA PROJECT
    The proposed North American Water and Power Alliance is a smaller scale scheme. It would bring 100 million acre-feet2 per year of water from Alaska and Canada to be evaporated by irrigation in the western United States and Mexico.

  174. hunter says:

    The only option that makes sense is to fertilize the oceans. And that, only because it will improve fish production.
    If I was a large fishing company, I would start doing it now, perhaps in syndication with others.
    It might take a season or two, but the impact could be huge.
    If it happens to lower CO2 by bio-sequestration, so be it.

  175. AJB says:

    O/T. Interesting article in The Times today. Met Office criticising Rahmstorf:

    Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’

    Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: “These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory.”

    The row comes just weeks after the so-called climategate affair when emails leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit revealed how scientists tried to withhold data from public scrutiny.

  176. Gail Combs says:

    DJ Meredith (20:23:33) :

    “…Our gubbmint can’t manage a financial system that it Does have full control over…..and you wanna turn it loose on nature?? Sorry, but mankind is better left drawing pictures of hockey sticks and scaring each other.”

    Here in the USA the gubbmint, (thanks to the democrats) turned full control of the financial system over to the Central Bankers. This is true of many other countries too, and they have been periodically “shearing the sheep” (us) ever since.

    “A Primer on Money,” by the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance Committee on Banking & Currency House of Representatives; 88th Congress: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/patman-primer-on-money.pdf

    Secrets of the Federal Reserve: Eustace Mullins, member of the staff of the Library of Congress: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

  177. a reader says:

    Weather and climate modification schemes have a long history. See:

    “Weather Modification in the Public Interest” by Robert Fleagle 1974 published by the American Meteorolgical Society
    ” Ice or Fire? Surviving Climatic Change” by D. S. Halacy Jr. 1978 especially ch. 11 Can we Change the Climate?
    “The Genesis Strategy” by Stephen Schneider 1976. He documents plans to melt the Arctic ice cap by damming the Bering Straits by the Russians sometime after 1940, plus several other schemes.
    “We’re Doing Something About the Weather” by Walter Orr Roberts, National Geographic Mag. April 1972.

  178. Craig Loehle says:

    One of the big concerns about oceans is the development of “dead zones” such as at the mouth of the Mississippi River, where agricultural runoff feeds phyoplankton too much, which die, sink, and use up all the oxygen as they decompose, which kills fish. Fertilizing the ocean on purpose with iron or whatever would expand dead zones on a massive scale–indeed, the only way to have a net huge increase in carbon sinking to depths is to overload the ability of decomposers and consumers to eat all the phytoplankton, which means oxygen would be used up. Clever idea to create a huge crisis.

  179. DirkH says:

    “AJB (07:41:04) :

    O/T. Interesting article in The Times today. Met Office criticising Rahmstorf:”

    Rahmstorf is the top german alarmist. He sits in Potsdam, close to Berlin where the government is. His specialty is catastrophic flooding.

    The “lukewarmer school” OTOH is in Hamburg (von Storch) and Kiel (Latif).

    It’s funny because Rahmstorf’s a few 100km from the sea while von Storch and Latif are in coastal cities. So it should be the other way round.

  180. Climate is changng, has always changed, and will always change.

    That is simply “What Is” !

    Earth is heated by a variable star.

    Solar cycles are induced by gravitational interactions between the Sun’s dense, energetic core with planets in orbits and constantly changing positions [See: "Earth Heat Source - The Sun", Energy and Environment 20 (2009) 131-144]

    Politicians, kings, and emperors have certain powers, but they cannot stop planets from orbiting the Sun and they cannot stop climate change.

    That’s my opinion,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  181. Magnus A says:

    I was surprised to notice that Garth Paltridge in his book Climate Caper isn’t so negative to Ocean fertilization. Instead he means that only small amounts, not substantially much larger than from sand dust blowing into the oceans, can fertilize them. Also he think that it’s ironical that the environmental movement is negative. They don’t want any solution that reduces CO2?

    The environmental movement don’t want nuclear power either, and I think that many of them mostly want some carbon ration scheme (the far left), and political control. Market economy defenders want carbon credits. Besides this many environmentalist for sure think that mankind rapidly destroys the world…

    So a mild fertilization is probably cheap and will not harm our environment.

  182. 3x2 says:

    DennisA

    But …but …everybody knows that cooling by the 70’s wasn’t taken seriously except by a handful of irresponsible alarmists in the media.

  183. Spector says:

    hunter (07:13:26) :

    I believe that CO2 bio-sequestration by genetic engineering is a process that could get out of hand and cause vast unintended results. This could be a case like that of the Civil War general who created a real gap in his line while trying to fill an imaginary one.

  184. blondieBC says:

    “”lmg (19:26:44) :

    “Waterways leading to Berlin have started to freeze, impeding coal and oil deliveries…”

    Coming soon: Ice breakers on the Danu””

    Do ice breakers even work on rivers?

  185. Viv Evans says:

    Artificial trees?
    Whats wrong with planting ordinary, natural ones?
    Not complicated enough?
    Not a sufficiently hi-tech solution?

    (And how will future generations measure tree rings in those artificial trees, one wonders … think of the poor future climate scientists, what pickle they’ll be in!)

  186. blondieBC says:

    “” Bill Tuttle (22:29:41) :

    Heh. Max ordinate (the highest the shell will reach) for a 155mm howitzer (the largest artillery piece still in common use) is about 16,000 feet. In order to get the microparticles into the upper atmosphere using artillery, they’ll have to fire them from the jumbo jets””

    For extra range, you could use RAP rounds, they go farther. Also, as with any gun, a longer barrel translates to more force. This is why rifles have more velocity than pistols with the same round.

    The german Paris Gun made it to the upper atmosphere in WW1. Sadam Hussein was working on a long range gun. The technology exists to move the 155 shell to upper atmosphere.

    The gun would likely need to be a customed designed gun though, not an old artillery piece.

  187. Pamela Gray says:

    With as much hot air that Gore puts out, I would think he would make a great CO2 scrubber. Launch him into space and force CO2 back through his system. That should result in clean oxygen coming out the other end would it not?

  188. John Galt says:

    I thought Chu said we just need to paint our roofs white?

  189. blondieBC says:

    For those interested in moving sea water to inland area, the link below provides information and references for the Dead Sea.

    http://www1.american.edu/TED/deadsea.htm

  190. photon without a Higgs says:

    E.M.Smith (21:47:39) :

    ….don’t know if these are aftershocks or foreshocks..…they are all aftershocks….until you get a bigger one, then they were foreshocks….

    Ok, that clears it all up. Thanks!

    ———————————————–

    The foreshocks/aftershocks are still happening between Milpitas and Ferndale.

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/special/California_Nevada_eqs.php

  191. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Richard S Courtney (16:07:31) :
    “People here are missing the point.
    “Politicians need a way out. They have ‘nailed their colours to the mast’ of AGW. And the AGW scare is coming to an end.
    “But politicians cannot say they were wrong to have supported AGW because that would lose them votes. And they cannot be seen to be doing nothing in response to the AGW scare that they have said is a serious threat because that would lose them votes. So, they have to be seen to be doing something.”
    _______________________________

    So true! But given the present crop of Pols its doubtful that anything can be found to get them on the correct path. All they know how to do is throw money at a problem. Don’t mean to be “political” but the biggest problem is the universal idea that its worse to send a newbee to Congress or Parliment than to reelect the same idiot for another term. I know that Congress is a problem, not sure about the Brit situation. A bigger falsehood than Global Warming is that members of Congress get better the longer they serve, or that one party will do the People’s Will if you let them have both houses of Congress and the White House. Sure! When elephants fly.

  192. Viv Evans says:

    Here is a paragraph from the comment by Dominic Lawson in the Times today, link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece

    “… the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”.”

    Mr Lawson didn’t give the name, nor the paper where this post appeared.

    Now I wonder – is this the method they’ve been using at the Met Office to show ‘warming’? Could this be how they ‘add value’ to their data?
    Shifting meteorological winter from December to November is a very interesting approach as well …

  193. Richard M says:

    I think we should start by banning all private jets, all limos, all pleasure sea craft, all movies, concerts, sporting events, art shows, etc. that require transportation by large numbers of individuals. Just think of all the CO2 that would not be emitted. Since all of it is non-essential to our existence, it would little impact on most individuals. We could then assess the impact before taking further steps.

    That should take care of the Hollywood elites and many other hypocrites. It would almost be funny to see their reactions. Too bad it would never come to pass.

  194. Richard M says:

    Aaarrrggg, pass … not past. Why don’t spell checkers know what I mean. ;)

    [You need a grammar checker. Anyway, fixed. ~dbs]

  195. AdderW says:

    blondieBC (08:15:48) :

    Do ice breakers even work on rivers?

    Are you for real? Blondie indeed….

  196. DirkH says:

    “Viv Evans (09:09:25) :
    [...]
    Mr Lawson didn’t give the name, nor the paper where this post appeared.”

    Google for the exact quote. It was only a comment on an article by some anonymous Tony. One warmist comments: If the sceptics are reduced to using this as evidence, they’ve lost. He’s right, if that would be all the evidence against AGW, we would have lost. So don’t go all gung ho about it.

  197. Tucci says:

    latitude, there are certain regions of the open oceans which are relatively deficient in iron. Waters which appear clear and inviting for SCUBA divers are, in fact, deserts compared with the murkier volumes in which the majority of the world’s most productive fisheries are located.

    Dissolved iron fosters microbial growth. We see this in human beings who are being treated with frequent administration of intravenous soluble iron compounds (such as patients with chronic kidney disease, both on and off dialysis). These patients are known to be at increased risk of bacterial sepsis even when they don’t have indwelling central venous lines (as many dialysis patients do). Those iron injections set them up for it, and for this reason novel iron compoundings like ferumoxytol are being received with great interest in nephrology.

    I won’t go into detail here. Websearch “ferumoxytol” and you’ll find plenty of information on the subject.

    It is not that “the Geritol solution” directly fosters the growth of charismatic megafauna in the oceans but rather that increased amounts of dissolved iron in many waters improves growth rates among the microflora which make up the first link of the food chain.

    Many of those species are photosynthetic. They can’t increase in number and mass WITHOUT taking up CO2, and this is the”carbon-fixing” advantage of the Geritol solution. Secondarily, amplification of first-link food chain production necessarily increases foodstuff productivity in treated regions of the ocean.

    The caveat about unintended secondary consequences must be maintained, but thus far it has not been shown that other measures taken to enhance oceanic iron concentrations (such as sinking ships, trolley cars, etc., to create “artificial reefs”) has had significant adverse effects. Putting equal amounts of ground-up iron oxide (i.e., rust) into similar waters would be cheaper, easier, and more likely to engage a quick onset of action that could be assessed within a very few months or years.

  198. AL Clark says:

    There could also be a voluntary euthanasia program where AGW-nuts and Vegans (redundant?) could line up to be put to sleep along with their Schitzu’s and assorted other purse-pooches to save the Earth from their personal toxic (CO2) emissions.

  199. Stacey says:

    The rise in global temperature of 0.7 C in the last 150 years is not unusual when compared to past temperature swings. The IPPC with influence has stated this figure, with input from the un-usual suspects, therefore it is probably lower. On this basis it is imperative that we do something. No it’s not good enough to whistle in the dark whilst cuddling your toy polar bear.

    Well, I have given this deep thought and the best solution would be to gain control of the moon, which we could move around to block out the sun. “There is a down side to this” you say “because places would be in the dark”. But of course we will control the moon in such a way to create eclipses over the oceans? Clever see.

    How do we control the movement of the Moon, well that’s for me to know and you to find out:-)

    If there are a any grocers apostrophes in the above they are all my own work.

    @ ralph
    Great post and letter to DC.

  200. G. Karst says:

    If it is a sulfated atmosphere we want, all we have to do is turn off the sulfur scrubbers that we have installed (at great expense) at most modern power plants. Remember acid rain mitigation motivated us to do this in the first place.

    Actually the Chinese are presently doing this for us. No need for heroic measures. Most Chinese stations do not even deploy basic precipitators. GK

  201. r says:

    Why put reflector disks in the sky when you can instead plant a tree in a black-top parking lot?

  202. KlausB says:

    OT here and from the “weather is not climate department”:

    Currently two states of Germany get the white global warming stuff quite
    tough, several counties of the states of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are already on “Katastrophen-Alarm” – state of emergency.

    The wind and the snow did create snow up to 3 meters – and it’s still heavily
    snowing. In Friesland – Lower Saxony, coast of the North Sea, a dyke is under severe stress.

    The return of the winter of 1978/79 is on it’s way.

  203. Smokey says:

    DennisA (06:51:45)
    Stacey (09:57:02),

    Yes, yes… click

  204. Indiana Bones says:

    Here’s a wacky literary engineering idea from Dr. Mann:

    http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FC841_michae_G_20091217174546.jpg

  205. Pascvaks says:

    I hope it does NOT come as a surprise to anyone but the above are the TEN MOST REASONABLE METHODS of reducing global CO2 levels and the Sahara-like temperatures we have been experiencing since the start of the new Millennium. The Ten Methods viewed as least likely in today’s political environment, yet with immense appeal for many AGW activists who view them as the most meaningful and capable of producing the biggest bang for the buck (so to speak), include:
    100. Global population reduction by 99 percent via plague and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    99. Global population reduction by 98 percent via swine flu and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    98. Global population reduction by 97 percent via starvation and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    97. Global population reduction by 96 percent via dehydration and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    96. Global population reduction by 95 percent via solar flares and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    95. Global population reduction by 94 percent via political corruption and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    94. Global population reduction by 93 percent via federal healthcare and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    93. Global population reduction by 92 percent via incompetent teachers and professors and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    92. Global population reduction by 91 percent via social breakdown of morals, norms and ethics and establishment of Utopian World Government.
    91. Global population reduction by 90 percent via UN control and taxation and establishment of Utopian World Government when the UN collapses.

  206. DirkH says:

    Another wacky geo-engineering idea: Given that Svensmark is right, we can simply build nuclear reactors with a cylindrical shield, with an open top.

    While the population would be shielded from radioactivity, the gamma rays could in this way seed clouds above the reactor, increasing cloud cover and cooling the earth, acting as a man-made surrogate cosmic ray.

  207. Barry Foster says:

    This whole ridiculous idea that we can ‘dial-in’ any temperature we want is science gone mad. We cannot return to a temperature level of yesteryear by trying to alter the climate. To believe so is arrogance itself. And even if it were possible, what if a volcano then reduced temperatures further? We’d be forever locked into a tampering of the climate – which isn’t possible anyway! We don’t even know what temperature we’d like as we cannot collectively decide when warming was supposed to have started. I’m currently trying to ascertain just such a thing over at Joesph Romm’s site http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/31/science-the-hottest-decade-ends-maunder-mininum-solar-cycle-24-global-warming/#comment-251076

  208. klausb says:

    Update/weather is not climate/Germany:

    Another dyke, county Ostholstein is under severe distress.

    The iland of Fehmarn is already isolated since yesterday evening,
    the bridge is not passable, the villages are isolated from each other.

    Fortunately, after ’78/79, a lot of farmers did install diesel-povered UPS.

  209. KeithGuy says:

    Maybe we should pump CFCs into the atmosphere to increase the Ozone hole. After all isn’t that what is supposed to be keeping the Antarctic so cool.

    Of course we would have to provide any Llamas living on the southern tip of South America with sun hats, but we could make these from natural, locally sourced materials such as pampas grass.

  210. son of mulder says:

    ” DirkH (09:23:29) :

    “Viv Evans (09:09:25) :
    [...]
    Mr Lawson didn’t give the name, nor the paper where this post appeared.”

    ……… One warmist comments: If the sceptics are reduced to using this as evidence, they’ve lost. …….. ”

    Sceptics have been reduced to FOI requests but been refused many times. Some Climate scientists have been reduced to refusing FOI requests. Where should one get the possible evidence from?

  211. Tucci says:

    I agree with Barry Foster on the lack of feasibility in fine-tuning global climate, his contention that “This whole ridiculous idea that we can ‘dial-in’ any temperature we want” is absolutely nuts.

    If the Climategate conspiracy demonstrates anything, it’s that the complex multivariant system of global climate is not at all well-understood, and that computer modeling of this system – which is fraught with nonlinear responses to a multitude of inputs – does not even adequately explain why the damned system has responded as it has in the past, much less anticipate how changes will develop in the future.

    The error at the root of the elaborate fraud perpetrated by “Mike’s Hockey Team” was the assumption back in the ’80s that their gormless mathematical models actually reflected reality when in fact those half-a-lung crud code fumblings were the product of rootless assumptions compounded by datasets riddled with instrumental errors which none of these blithering dolts even attempted to appreciate.

    If it is impossible to understand why the climate as a whole changes as it does (and I’d say that the one robust statement about this whole proposition is that we do NOT have a good grasp on how and why climate change can be fiddled by way of purposeful human action), efforts to “fine tune” global temperature are both foolish and potentially damaging.

    Limited notions like “the Geritol solution” (adding iron oxide to selected ocean areas) are worth examining because they are likely to have beneficial secondary consequences. Increasing fisheries’ productivity is a Good Thing, ceteris paribus, and if carbon dioxide sequestration is increased in the process there is almost no likelihood that harm will be done.

    As for other ideas… Hm. Has anyone here considered an alternative to the stupid multibillion reflective Frisbee concept?

    Solar power satellites. Big aluminized Mylar reflectors deployed to harvest sunlight, convert it to electricity, and MASER it down to rectenna grids on the planetary surface. Together with microgravity industrial processes in orbit and at a couple of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, the harvest of asteroidal raw materials (both nickel-iron bodies and the carbonaceous chondrites), there is the potential not only for reducing arguably nasty terrestrial insolation – not that this is actually happening, mind – but also for increasing our material wealth enormously.

    Those of us of a Promethean inclination hold that this is justification enough for getting out of this gravity well and up to where there’s a whole solar system waiting for human exploitation.

    The Luddites – which emphatically includes the AGW alarmists – deserve nothing more than to be left behind to freeze in the dark.

  212. DirkH says:

    “son of mulder (10:42:27) :
    [...]
    Where should one get the possible evidence from?”

    I got a foot of evidence when i look out the window. More evidence from the road traffic news here in Lower Saxony. Plenty more to come.

  213. Gail Combs says:

    The Mail’s account of the bad winter weather [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239908/Britains-big-freeze-hit-return-work-forecasters-issue-new-ice-alert-drivers.html] attracted comments critical of the Met Office. A Tony from Norwich came commented:

    “I work for the Met office and am appalled by all the negative comments about us on this site. This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonly warm month, then all the data will come from those readings. And not to reveal too much, the data does show that the average over those 15 readings will make it a very warm reading. You cannot accept that a week’s snow will affect the outcome.”

    So that is where the information came from. We will have to see if it turns out to be true.

  214. Richard S Courtney says:

    Pascvaks (09:05:43) :

    Thankyou for considering (and, it seems, understanding) my point.

    You say:
    “But given the present crop of Pols its doubtful that anything can be found to get them on the correct path. All they know how to do is throw money at a problem.”

    OK. I accept that. But the politicians are following a wrong path. I think the geo-engineering ploy is worth a try as a method to get them off it while AGW fades away. And the ploy does need some money thrown at it but the needed money is trivial compared to the money being thrown at windfarms, Cap & Trade, carbon taxes, etc.

    Perhaps it is not surprising that on this ‘science’ blog most people want to discuss the (im)plausibility of the technologies for the geo-engineering. However, if any such technology could be developed then it is never likely to be implemented because, as I said, if a country tried to implement it then that would would probably be seen as an act of war by its neighbours.

    You seem to doubt the possibility of the geo-engineering ploy being able to get politicians off the wrong path. Perhaps you are right. But I sincerely think it is worth a try. What else is available?

    Anyway, I am grateful that you are willing to debate the point. Most people here seem to have taken a lead from the headline and dismiss the subject as “wacky” without giving it serious consideration.

    Richard

  215. klausb says:

    Update II/weather is not climate/Germany:

    Regions on code red or code orange,
    Germany, states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,
    Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein (all the others
    are only on code yellow)

    code orange:

    Aurich / Friesland, Lower Saxony
    Wittmund / Friesland, Lower Saxony
    Cuxhaven, Lower Saxony
    Dithmarschen, Schleswig-Holstein
    Nordfriesland, Schleswig-Holstein
    Schleswig-Flensburg (inlands), Schleswig-Holstein

    code red:

    Schleswig-Flensburg (coastal), Schleswig-Holstein
    Rendsburg-Eckernfoerde, Schleswig-Holstein
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    Ploen, Schleswig-Holstein
    Stormarn, Schleswig-Holstein
    Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein

    Schwerin, Nordwestmecklenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Wismar, Nordwestmecklenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Rostock, Nordwestmecklenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Bad Doberan, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Stralsund, Nordvorpommern, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Greifswald, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Ostvorpommern, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
    Ruegen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

  216. King of Cool says:

    I went to the 3D movies last night and it’s given me a great idea. I think we should all make a monkey suit with a long tail. Then put the monkey suit on and pop along to your nearest botanical garden that has hanging vines. Then wrap your tail around the hanging vines and meditate for an hour chanting CO2 go, CO2 go, Co2 go. You did say wacky gaio ingineering didn’t you?

  217. klausb says:

    From 1978/79 – a movie (german language)

    “Minutes of a Disaster”
    http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5616993840761940811#

  218. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    “I work for the Met office and am appalled by all the negative comments about us on this site. This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonly warm month, then all the data will come from those readings. And not to reveal too much, the data does show that the average over those 15 readings will make it a very warm reading. You cannot accept that a week’s snow will affect the outcome.”

    Reminds me of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

  219. H.R. says:

    I say we make everyone wear white clothing, all of the time. That’d be white parkas and pants in the colder climes and white t-shits and shorts in the warmer regions. You can wear any style you like of any clothing you like just so long as it’s white. (Oh, I know the fashion industry would complain, but after all, it’s “to save the planet.”)

    Then we’ll see just exactly how much anthropogenic effect there is on the temperature.

  220. pi* says:

    Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece

    In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”

  221. klausb says:

    Update III/weather is not climate/Germany:

    On free-tv here “The Day after Tomorrow” is currently running.
    Really funny, indeed.

  222. r says:

    Here’s what happens when you try to engineer nature:

    “A well-intentioned attempt in 1972 to create what was touted as the world’s largest artificial reef made of tires has become an ecological disaster. The idea was simple: Create new marine habitat and alternate dive sites to relieve pressure on natural reefs, while disposing of tires that were clogging landfills.

    Decades later it’s clear the plan failed miserably.

    Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the bundles bound together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against the nearby natural reef some 70 feet below the sea surface, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life. Similar problems have been reported at tire reefs worldwide. ”

    http://www.coral.org/node/389

  223. cba says:

    Population reductions promoted over the last century have tended to be suggesting a reduction to 500 million worldwide. I’m not sure where the number came from but one could find it around during the 1980s in the new age movement arena. I guess back then that we’d all be dead before 2000 because the Earth couldn’t support 5 billion people so everyone would starve to death and we only had 10 years to fix the problem.

    In that vein, eliminating less than 1% of the population – the envirowhacko nitwitts and their political hacks and socialist promoting ecoprofiteers – would be all that is necessary to totally eliminate our present ‘crisis’. It should also include any other nitwitts who think that nature really needs assistance eliminating actual overpopulations and useless or defective species. As such, it should be obvious nature needs no help in either determining overpopulation or even who should be elliminated. Let nature take its course and it’ll be these darwin award candidates that will be the first to prove they cannot survive. It’s their murder-suicide pact they want to enforce on everyone where there’s actually a real serious problem.

  224. rbateman says:

    Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (11:31:22) :

    Here we are a full month into one very icy Northern Winter, and Piers Corbyn say don’t look for any change until the end of February. He says it’s no Cold Snap. Old Man Winter has his pockets stuffed with goodies to make Global Warming beg for mercy. So, let the news reporters get the word out, prepare for one long siege of brutal cold.
    The Met Office needs to put a sock in it. This is already way beyond a Cold Snap. It’s rapidly turning into the Winter from Hell.

  225. MartinGAtkins says:

    Most of this thread is about something we have discussed as each subject has come up.

    Do we really need a whole thread about the stupid ideas propeller heads come up with when they are intellectually mastabating?

    Can’t we leave such things as orbiting sun umbrellas to the tabloid science outlets such as Nature and Science Magazine?

  226. photon without a Higgs says:

    That poor guy at the Met can’t figure out what’s wrong.

    Like they say, “Look out the window.”

  227. photon without a Higgs says:

    the past 7 days in the US

    a.k.a., The 7 Days Before Tomorrow

    http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow

  228. rbateman says:

    The poor guy at the Met can’t figure out what’s going on because everything he’s working with has been fouled up beyond all recognition.
    At this point, he’s looking out the window and shaking his head.
    “This does not compute”.
    Yeah. Throw the computerized ballast overboard, and use the power to heat the place. You’ll be glad you did.
    Change the venue. Open the doors to the freezing homeless, do something worthwhile for a change. Find the data that CRU lost, repair the record.
    Then tell everyone why we are getting a 19th Century Winter.

  229. Stephen Brown says:

    I must confess that the title to this thread still causes me some concern.

    “ingineering”?

  230. Stephen Brown says:

    Not a subtle play on the word “ingenuity” is it?
    Too subtle for me.

  231. Spector says:

    Some years ago Murray Leinster wrote a short story titled “Solar Constant,” now available free online as chapter 13 of “Planets of Adventure” at the Baen.com free library. In the story, Senior Colonial Survey officer Bordman finds himself trapped on a planet with a rapidly dimming sun because their solar power grid is not receiving enough energy to launch his ship. He has to do something quick before the CO2 starts to snow out of the cold atmosphere.

    I believe this was written when the fear was global cooling.

  232. Stephen Brown says:

    Aha! The situation is saved. There is now an investigation into the problem of McFarts (or McBurps, whatever).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/6961670/McDonalds-launches-study-into-flatulent-cows-used-in-its-burgers.html

  233. rbateman says:

    Stephen Brown (12:45:23) :

    Not a subtle play on the word “ingenuity” is it?
    Too subtle for me.

    ingineering= imaginations in engineering gone off the deep end of sanity.

    Goes back to Tax & Spill: Pay enough money and you can remove all the restricions on clean air, so as to pump as much S02 into the atmosphere as possible and cool the imaginary overheated Earth.

  234. Stacey says:

    @Smokey
    “DennisA (06:51:45)
    Stacey (09:57:02),

    Yes, yes… click
    End of Post

    Thank you Smokey. I will give you first option for shares in my new venture?

  235. Barry Foster says:

    I’ve been having a little fun over on Joseph Romm’s web site and, it appears, managed (quite easily actually) to get the better of him. Guess what? He removed the post! Is this as petulant as he gets?

  236. Roger Knights says:

    Spector (05:51:34) :

    Perhaps the real danger is that some ‘well meaning’ group of scientists might develop a plan that really *does* work and getting out of control, removes 95% of the CO2 from the atmosphere causing worldwide crop failures and the next ice age.

    No problemo! McKinsey & Co. will happily (for a fee) supply a second Sorcerer’s Apprentice to counteract the first one, and a third to counteract the second, ad infinitum.

  237. Roger Knights says:

    Does anyone here understand earthquakes and aftershocks?

    The experts have moved to the offshore Oregon coast. But they ain’t talking.

  238. DirkH says:

    “klausb (11:26:17) :

    From 1978/79 – a movie (german language)

    “Minutes of a Disaster”
    http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5616993840761940811#

    Thanks, i was 13 at the time and probably had a jolly good time in Braunschweig without noticing all of this. A very impressive documentation.

  239. phlogiston says:

    Tucci (09:23:40)

    “Dissolved iron fosters microbial growth.”

    “Many of those species are photosynthetic.”

    Are you referring to microbes / bacteria specifically, or to eukaryotic phytoplankton? – the two are as different phytoplankton and giraffes. The bacteria / microbes comprise one component of the planktonic but cannot thrive without other plankton to provide organic material that they subsist on. The bacteria are in turn grazed down by heterotrophic microflaggelates (this is easy to demonstrate by putting a rice grain in a bottle of seawater and keeping it in the dark). (Marine viruses also keep bacterial numbers in check.)

    Stimulating only microbial growth would do little if anything to induce a planktonic bloom in oceanic water. The photosynthesis by cyanobacteria is only a very small fraction of primary production most of which is eukaryotic.

  240. phlogiston says:

    Spector (05:51:34)

    Removal of 95% of CO2 from air would cause a mass extinction, probably of most multicellular life (that includes humans).

  241. 3x2 says:

    Gail Combs (11:03:11) : (and others)

    So that is where the information came from. We will have to see if it turns out to be true.

    Some of you could do with a minimum of 10 mins away from the net each day.

    I’m fairly sure that anything you hear from the MO for a while will have gone through a full senior staff meeting first. It certainly won’t come from “Tony” in the comments section of the daily mail.

  242. Roger Knights says:

    The idea that the Met Office would use the highest temperatures to as an indicator is preposterous on its face. Some warmist must have posted it as a prank, to see how many of us were credulous enough to believe it.

  243. Barry Foster says:

    Roger Knights. It was a prank. I read that original post and it was clear he was making it up as he didn’t know the parameters that the Met Office use (which even I know). It’s annoying as he has managed to fool VERY many people and wound them up. I’ve been doing my best to shoot it down.

  244. Spector says:

    RE: phlogiston (14:19:52):

    “Spector (05:51:34): Removal of 95% of CO2 from air would cause a mass extinction, probably of most multicellular life (that includes humans).”

    Then we wouldn’t have to worry about the ice-age. I do think CO2 has been made the ‘black beast’ of climate change on rather flimsy technical evidence. Perhaps this could be a case of ‘be careful of what you wish for.’

  245. klausb says:

    @DirkH (14:07:16) :

    Dirk, I was in Flensburg in ’78/79. Wasn’t funny.
    Two years later, winter of 80/81, it was even more snow.
    But then, we were somehow prepared.

  246. DirkH says:

    “klausb (15:56:10) :

    @DirkH (14:07:16) :

    Dirk, I was in Flensburg in ‘78/79. Wasn’t funny.
    Two years later, winter of 80/81, it was even more snow.
    But then, we were somehow prepared.”

    This winter will not be that hard. The solar minimum is still young.

  247. lmg says:

    ‘This is already way beyond a Cold Snap. It’s rapidly turning into the Winter from Hell.”

    It may be enough to change the minds of the public and, more importantly, their insane rulers.

  248. asiaseen says:

    Feed the cows charcoal biscuits. That will soak up the burps and farts, sequestering carbon, and the resulting steaks will e self-barbecuing.

  249. Bill Tuttle says:

    Barry Foster (15:05:33) :
    Roger Knights. It was a prank. I read that original post and it was clear he was making it up as he didn’t know the parameters that the Met Office use (which even I know).

    So, it wasn’t a prank, it was just someone who provided a garbage answer in an attempt to keep from being considered uninformed — and who is now revealed as an uninformed fool because he provided a garbage answer?

    Marvelous. These people are self-licking ice-cream cones.

  250. phlogiston says:

    Spector (15:51:21)

    “Perhaps this could be a case of ‘be careful of what you wish for.’”

    Definitely agree, with something as complex as climate, deliberate interference is not a good idea. The model assumptions that would underlie any such intervention have as much chance of being true as one would have of winning a national lottery. And nonlinear chaotic dynamics in climate could reduce that probability still further to zero.

  251. Met Office says:

    We do not believe that ‘Tony’, from Norwich,who claims to be work for us, is an employee. His comment on the Daily Mail website is not an official statement from the Met Office and does not reflect the views or policy of the Met Office.
    Information about how we produce our seasonal forecasts can be found here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/index.html

    Reply: Based on the IP address of this post, it does not appear to originate from inside the Met office. Try again from the office and not your home computer if you are real.

    netname: BT-CENTRAL-PLUS
    descr: IP pools
    country: GB
    admin-c: BTCP1-RIPE
    tech-c: BTCP1-RIPE
    status: ASSIGNED PA
    remarks: Please send abuse notification to
    mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
    mnt-lower: BTNET-MNT
    mnt-routes: BTNET-MNT
    source: RIPE # Filtered

    ~ ctm

  252. Geo-engineering, it’s the mad science Olympics!

  253. SteveSadlov says:

    This is frightening. These efforts could result in an extinction.

  254. Sarah says:

    Didn’t WUWT have a post some months ago where someone was trying to see what the effect on the ocean would be if they seeded it with some product or other? Snag was the plankton ate the product and the fish ate the plankton. End of experiment.

  255. Milwaukee Bob says:

    Bill Tuttle (23:42:42) :

    “Marvelous. These people are self-licking ice-cream cones.”

    Thanks Bill. :)

    Needed that today here in frozen Florida.

  256. Carl says:

    Consider these Geo-engineering solutions to the fraudulent Global Warming Crisis due to ‘excess C02′; what could happen if Plant Life was deprived of Carbon as a food source for its photosynthesis in the air and water? If it was ‘too’ successful in its effort to combat faux Climate Change. This is basic High School Biology guys. We can rely on government funding to take it from here with R & D.
    What could be the effects of taking out C02 out of the air on Climate and Food Production?
    The solution to the Faux Crisis Climate Change with a actual Crisis.

  257. JER0ME says:

    DirkH (10:19:06) :

    Another wacky geo-engineering idea: Given that Svensmark is right, we can simply build nuclear reactors with a cylindrical shield, with an open top.

    While the population would be shielded from radioactivity, the gamma rays could in this way seed clouds above the reactor, increasing cloud cover and cooling the earth, acting as a man-made surrogate cosmic ray.

    Nice idea, apart from planes full of people, and there are the irradiated birds, of course ;-)

  258. Tor says:

    I thik there is reason to be optimistic about geoengineering. Read why here: http://howisearth.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/geoengineering-climate-change/.

Comments are closed.