Reprinted from totallytopten.com
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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..
“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.
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.
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/
“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.
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.
Any one heard of Professor Latif or Prof Tsonis ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
” 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.
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.
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
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.
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…….