Must be IPCC week. When it rains the stupid, it pours. From the Telegraph:
IPCC ‘considering sending mirrors to space to tackle climate change’
Reflective aerosols would be sent into space under a series of radical “geo-engineering” measures being considered by the UN climate science body to tackle climate change, leaked documents disclose.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) papers, leaked ahead of a key meeting in Peru next week, outline the series of techniques in which scientists hope will manipulate the world’s climate to reduce carbon emissions.
Among the ideas proposed by a group of 60 leading scientists from around the world, including Britain, include producing “lighter coloured” crops to reflect sunlight, blasting aerosol “mirrors” into the stratosphere and suppressing cirrus clouds.
Other suggestions include spraying sea water into clouds as another reflection mechanism, depositing massive quantities of iron filings into the oceans, painting streets and roofs white and adding lime to oceans.
Experts suggested that the documents, leaked from inside the IPPC to The Guardian, show how the UN and other developed countries are “despairing” about reaching agreement by consensus at the global climate change talks.
But the newspaper reported that scientists admit that even if the ideas theoretically work, they could cause irreversible consequences.
====================================================
Just an FYI, the documents in full are publicly available at SCRIBD here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57920959/Joint-IPCC-expert-meeting-on-geoengineering-keynote-abstracts
The key buzzphrase is – “solar radiation management”, but there’s a catch they mention:
That, and the fact that it’s batshit crazy and a powder-keg for priming a global explosion of the law of unintended consequences.
Even Joe Romm doesn’t like the idea because of this catch, and when Romm starts rejecting crazy climate ideas, you know it’s bad. I’ll bet Greenpeace has made a recommendation for it though.
h/t to WUWT reader AndiC
It is a race to the finish line between these geoengineering wet dreams and the Maunder Minimum we are entering. Will it get cold enough, fast enough to put a stop this nonsense?
I do not want to get on the wrong side of that mirror…
to quote Juan I Collar (University of Chicago):
pure ” weapons grade balonium”
If we plan on sending stuff up into orbit, we may as well make sure that it generates something of real value (electricity). I haven’t heard anything on space-based power systems in ages, why not? This would take care of all of our concerns, from carbon to limits on fossil supplies.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm
This is why we have to win our fight against the hysteria, winning in public so that very few people exist who believe it any more.
If we do not handle this hysteria, action will be taken on it. Already, the world’s economy is collapsing from anti-carbon action. But its ecosystems will collapse too, if belief in warmism goes on much longer. These strategies will be implemented, and real climate change will occur. It may not be easy to recover from.
This is the most awesome post you’ve ever posted! No unintended consequences from dumping 30 gigatons of fossil CO2 per year? No unintended consequences from increasing the atmospheric concentration 35%?
I’m so totally confused. How can we have any unintended consequential effect on the climate via sulfates and mirrors if we can’t have any unintended consequential effect on the climate via dumping 30 Billion tons of fossil carbon per year? You need to stop and explain the detailed science behind your reasoning.
anderlannderlan says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:02 am
None worth counting!!
anderlan says:
“I’m so totally confused.”
We can see that. But don’t worry, we’re here to help.
First, you’re frightening yourself by using those big, scary numbers. CO2 is only 0.00039 of the air. And there has been no global harm observed due to adding more of this beneficial trace gas. If there were “unintended consequences”, don’t you think there would be at least a little evidence of a problem by now? But there is no such evidence. None. The only result of the added CO2 is increased agricultural productivity.
Conclusion: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.
Don’t worry, be happy!☺
Thankyou . . . . Smokey!!!
And when the article says: . . . “scientists admit that even if the ideas theoretically work, they could cause irreversible consequences” . . . . Code for: more research funding please . . . In my opinion . . .
Instead of wasting money on STUPID mirrors why not use that money to buy all the worlds tropical forest and KEEP it protected? that might just help keep the climate under control, you know, the natural way
Climate change, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Floods, Droughts, Tsunamis, Tornado’s, Hurricanes, Blizzards, Mudslides, and even Asteroids . . . have been a matter of living or dying since time began . . . . that is the natural way! Buying all the worlds tropical forests will not stop the above . . . We have never had a perfect . . . “climate” all over earth! Only in certain places that were bought up along time ago! And even those places will not stay perfect “forever”!
I have an idea. Instead of buying, selling, and trading ever more abstract concepts of “carbon credits” or “green” nonsense, or spending endless resources on dubious and destructive schemes like spraying us to death with chemical aerosols daily, or dumping more crap in the oceans, how bout we plant more TREES? Remember trees? Those shade-spreading, life-giving, food-producing, CO2 exchanging, long-living, sustainably pleasant miracles of nature? Jus sayin…
MSW;
natural reforestation of abandoned marginal farmland has been going on since the West was opened and the hardscrabble landholders gratefully fled to the deep topsoils of the plains. There’s more tree cover in the US now than since the Pilgrims landed.