The American Geophysical Union thinks “climate intervention” is a viable area of research

AGU Release No. 18-06

American Geophysical Union urges research programs on climate intervention to better understand the risks and opportunities

AGU updates its position statement on climate intervention and issues a related white paper on the topic.

WASHINGTON, DC— The American Geophysical Union (AGU) today announced a revision and reaffirmation of its position statement, “Climate Intervention Requires Enhanced Research, Consideration of Societal and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Development.”

The statement was updated to reflect changes in the current understanding of climate intervention approaches, notably updating “geoengineering solutions” to “climate intervention” and discussing the two distinct categories of climate intervention: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and albedo modification (AM).

Further, AGU affirms its endorsement of more substantial CDR and AM research programs to examine these strategies in more detail, including programs outlined by the U.S. National Academies.

“We know the climate is changing, humans are responsible for most of the increase in temperature over the past half century, and that emissions reductions must play a key role in policy moving forward.” said David Victor, Ph.D., chair of the Climate Intervention Position Statement Task Force for AGU. “Climate intervention could play a key role in managing the effects of climate change but our scientific understanding of its impacts remains poor.  More research to understand it’s full risks and opportunities will be vital to a more informed public policy.”

The nine-person panel that reviewed and revised the position statement included:

  • David Victor, University of California San Diego and Brookings Institution (chair)
  • Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution for Science
  • Piers Forster, University of Leeds
  • Ben Kravitz, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
  • Marcia McNutt, National Academies of Science
  • Joyce Penner, University of Michigan
  • Alan Robock, Rutgers University
  • Naomi Vaughan, University of East Anglia
  • Jennifer Wilcox, Colorado School of Mines

AGU maintains position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to the understanding and application of their members’ scientific disciplines.

The revised position statement was adopted by AGU’s Board of Directors in December 2017. The statement is based on AGU’s previous geoengineering statement adopted on 13 December 2009 in collaboration with the American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement which was adopted by AMS Council on 20 July 2009. AGU revised and reaffirmed that original statement in February 2012. Learn more about AGU position statements.


The American Geophysical Union is dedicated to advancing the Earth and space sciences for the benefit of humanity through its scholarly publications, conferences, and outreach programs. AGU is a not-for-profit, professional, scientific organization representing 60,000 members in 137 countries. Join the conversation on FacebookTwitterYouTube, and our other social media channels.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 18, 2018 5:59 am

“We know the climate is changing, humans are responsible for most of the increase in temperature over the past half century, and that emissions reductions must play a key role in policy moving forward.”

That’s how science works, right? Based only on Ex-Cathedra statements which Can Not Be Questioned?

Reply to  wws
January 18, 2018 6:43 am
Reply to  john
January 18, 2018 7:10 am

Wind corporation attached gps tracker to legislators vehicle:

Reply to  john
January 18, 2018 7:59 am

This Oklahoma spy issue got much worse. Other republican legislators have been followed as well.

Oklahoma Politicians Stunned by Discovery of Possible Spying | Political News | US News

Reply to  john
January 18, 2018 8:56 pm

I saw that on the news, but didn’t know a windmill company was involved.

I guess they don’t like the fact that the Oklahoma legislature is about to impose some taxes on the windmill companies.

Oklahoma already stopped paying new subsidies for windmill farms, and now this.

Windmills aren’t getting much love lately. I guess reality is setting in.

Reply to  wws
January 18, 2018 10:49 am

If we do not know how the system works, how can we assess what “interventions” can or cannot accomplish or even if such “interventions” will have a beneficial, detrimental or insignificant effects.

Running about with hair-on-fire and implementing all manner of silliness has not gotten us very far yet.

The precautionary principle ought to be considered against rash actions that do have deleterious impacts.

John harmsworth
Reply to  rocketscientist
January 18, 2018 3:03 pm

I agree with the AGU. I also agree with you!
It seems to me that there is a pretty fair chance that our friendly neighborhood Ice Age is coming back to kick our butts one of these days. Some preliminary work on maneuvering a metal rich asteroid into a geo-stationary orbit around Earth and mining, smelting and reforming it into a reflector would occupy some folks at NASA for a few days.
Might take them away from critical Muslim outreach work I suppose.

John V. Wright
Reply to  wws
January 18, 2018 2:59 pm

Well said wws. So Mr Victor, what was the %age breakdown between the human-caused rise in global temperature and the rise caused by natural variability? How could the AGU allow one of its senior people to make such a breathtakingly stupid comment.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 18, 2018 3:33 pm

All of these institutions have been taken over by a management who buys into the elite totalitarian meme. It is actually a strategy well practiced by the marxyfolk. When the iron curtain came down, freedom rushed in but centrally planned ideologues sneaked out. They are heading up NGOs, environmental orgs, scholarly associations, etc. Sounds a bit nutty and paranoid I know, but that is what happened. No one is “allowing” these senior people to do this. This is what they are there for.

Jeffrey Barker
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 18, 2018 5:18 pm

john V Wright

Because they are very stupid people with very dangerous ideas.

Pat Frank
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 18, 2018 5:23 pm

Voluntarily putting one’s name to that AGU statement is a direct indication of incompetence.

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  wws
January 18, 2018 4:47 pm

This is not about science. This is “David Victor, Ph.D., chair of the Climate Intervention Position Statement Task Force for AGU” shilling for more money for his friends and flunkies to do “More [junk] research to understand it’s full risks and opportunities” because, of course, that is “vital” to save us from the imaginary Climate Crisis.

Just more extortion by a dishonest business masquerading as scientists.

January 18, 2018 6:11 am

It’s time for Carbon Capture Utilization.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Sid Abma
January 18, 2018 6:19 am

Why waste any life-giving carbon by sending it to geologic oblivion?

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 7:07 am

And then having it leak to the surface, only to be captured and pumped underground again.

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 10:09 am

maybe you should have looked at the link before trying to comment on it !

Another Doug
Reply to  Sid Abma
January 18, 2018 10:36 am

Sid, how many CCU systems have you installed?

John harmsworth
Reply to  Sid Abma
January 18, 2018 3:04 pm

Slightly better than burning money I guess.

January 18, 2018 6:13 am

Reply to  gnomish
January 18, 2018 7:48 am

Love it!

Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 6:18 am

Great! Let’s get started with Russ George’s Ocean Iron Fertilization at a meaningful scale ASAP then, and restore global fisheries while controlling the CO2 build rate.

Eric H
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 6:31 am

/sarc much? Because you cant be serious….

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Eric H
January 18, 2018 6:54 am

Eric, What do you know about Russ George’s very successful OIF experiment off of Western Canada? Have you spent any time reading at ? Do you realize there are groups in Europe and Japan planning larger scale experiments? Do you know that the carbon credit globalist mafia got the Canadian government to SWAT team Mr. George and take his data so he wouldn’t cash in millions of carbon and crash their evil market?
You may be simply ignorant or you may be part of the those actively trying to prevent this win-win solution to the constructed AGW problem, that so many profit from, but there is nothing more powerful than an idea who’s time has come.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 7:16 am

Tom, read how the whole AGW idea was given wings. UNFCC AND IPCC creator Maurice Strong (google his quotes)- was a very bright high school dropout!! Christiana Figueres quotes. The whole thing is a political putsch. You are a youngish fellow and are not aware of the corrupted education you received.

You have one big plus going for you, though. You bravely came to a site with no safe place. You are battling against sceptics. This is good. Most of your confreres are bunkered in. I battle against sceptics too when I think they are off the mark. An education will get in through the cracks.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 7:54 am

Gary: There were only a few attempts at giving me a corrupted education at UNC Chapel Hill in the early 1980’s, but the physics department faculty and the handful of students that survived past freshman year, had no patience for foolish leftist ideas that couldn’t withstand a critical analysis. Even the majority of students at the time were too focused on their debauchery that leftist ideas, that hold such sway over UNC and the rest of academia today, had a hard time getting a foothold during “Morning in America”. Is 57 youngish?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 7:55 am

Speaking of no safe space, is this not sufficient to give credibility to what the independent researchers, labeled “conspiracy theorists” have been screaming about regarding chem trails? Aerosol spraying, etc…?
It honestly baffles me that anyone would still believe otherwise with the growing push towards weather modification. Heck, in Colorado the ski resorts coupled with Colorado State University have been employing ground based cloud seeding with silver oxide since 2007, if I remember correctly. There was a paper released by CSU about it, but they have been studying it done the 1950’s which means, they’ve been actively engaged in experimentation, meeting they’ve been doing it!­WeatherModificationProgram.aspx

Now Colorado University is on board as well:

So here is the big question, and why I Believe it’s actually happening. According to Dane Wiggington (of whom I’m quite skeptical because it appears he is a useful idiot claiming CAGW is legit through his work) this cloud seeding traps heat because of the metallic properties of aluminum, barium, and strontium. I’m not literate in these sciences so I wouldn’t know the first way to vet that information. But if it’s true, that would play a factor in localized weather patterns and claimed extreme swings.

Additionally, how the heck do these modelers factor in Geo engineering?
They don’t, they can’t, and they wouldn’t because it appears to have very negative impacts on weather which only support their religion.

If you thinks that’s insane, well start researching the history of weather modification and you’ll find this ain’t nothing new, and we have little to know idea of the real consequences of playing God

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 9:44 am

Cloud seeding is a localized and well documented method of making it rain in a certain location. The way it works is that raindrops form around your particles (or are forcibly coalesced if you use dry ice). They don’t stay up in the atmosphere for very long (it’s way too low for that), and are sprayed on clouds in the first place, so there’s very low total impact on the region.

It’s way too expensive to fulfill any conspiracy theory, and since it requires water-laden clouds in the first place, it can’t even be used to alleviate a drought. Your only real use for it is to make snow on a ski resort or spend a lot of money to keep snow out of Moscow (which rumor has that the Russians did for a little while until the expense got too much for them).

So while it does have local effects, the effect is minimal on a region, and nonexistent on the globe.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 3:44 pm

So Tom, I stand corrected and apologize. My children and grandchildren whom I helped navigate these perilous academic waters turned around and argued me down handily on occasion. I was so pleased I hadn’t wasted my time. I’m an engineer (and a geologist) and its a subject that you can’t water down too much or offer stupid practice information without putting the public at risk. The totes do go for office in the associations of engineers, though and make us update our skills to include severe global warming. I smile genially, ace the course and throw the papers away.

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 10:11 am

Here is a real simple solution. Just has to be expanded a bit.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 3:51 pm

replied to your last note below

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 3:51 pm

er above

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
January 18, 2018 7:22 pm

“Let’s get started with Russ George’s Ocean Iron Fertilization at a meaningful scale”

Let’s wait at least 10 years to jump into this or any of these Mad Scientist projects in case we ‘need’ to work on warming things up instead of cooling things anymore. Hopefully by then the whole CO2 fairy tale will be recognized as the science fiction that it is.

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 18, 2018 8:20 pm

Amend to that.

Tom in Florida (32F this morning)
January 18, 2018 6:19 am

First question that needs to be answered by AGU:
What is the optimum climate you for which you strive?

Second question to be answered by AGU:
Who made you the final authority to determine the answer to question one?

Tom in Florida (32F this morning)
Reply to  Tom in Florida (32F this morning)
January 18, 2018 6:20 am

Oops, to many “you”s

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Tom in Florida (32F this morning)
January 18, 2018 7:34 am

Well …maybe they ARE sheep … 8>))

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom in Florida (32F this morning)
January 18, 2018 9:58 am

Tom IF;
Strangely, it seems that Progressives have conservative ideas about climate and implicitly believe that the optimum climate is the climate that existed just before the Industrial Revolution, despite the astronomically low probability that — after 4.5 billion years — the Earth just happened to be at its optimum.

T Michael Lutas
Reply to  Tom in Florida (32F this morning)
January 20, 2018 7:26 am

The optimum climate can be determined later, actually. The science to develop a planetary thermostat is worth doing independent of the answer to the question or the question of who decides. The capability gives options and removes pressure to apply political or military coercion based on climate/temperature issues.

It does astonish me that they’re not listing the third set of geoengineering solutions, total solar radiation received adjustments. It’s not like options don’t exist and the concept is dead simple and if successfully applied would be a superior solution. Put up space object constellations to either partially block or add via reflection to received TSR values. As a bonus, if you make a mistake, adjustment time to better values is measured in hours, not decades. You’re just rotating satellites in either L1 (for TSR reduction) or L2/L3 (for TSR addition)

You just need cheap launch, cheap stationkeeping, and very likely cheap orbital manufacturing, all things which make people money and are likely to be developed anyway. Any real program of geoengineering needs to include it at least as a possibility over the next 50-100 years.

January 18, 2018 6:23 am

These people are not only crazy, they’re downright dangerous!

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
January 18, 2018 8:42 am

Our Norwegian friend is absolutely right – the track record of the academics who claim that we are driving any climate change in predicting real climate variation/weather is so poor that the thought that these losers should be allowed to conduct experiments on the planet should give any intelligent person the gravest concern. Blundering about with something they clearly have demonstrated so far that they do not fully (perhaps even marginally) understand is not only foolish but dangerous. It will be bad enough if they kill people locally with some piece of miscalculated stupidity, but some of the schemes suggested threaten global catastrophe, eg mirrors in space.
I am not surprised to see someone from the UEA in the list of enthusiasts, it is certainly disappointing to see someone from the University of Leeds in this cast.

Bill Powers
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
January 18, 2018 9:30 am

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Powers
January 18, 2018 10:00 am

Which is the handmaiden of Murphy’s Law.

Bob Burban
Reply to  Bill Powers
January 18, 2018 10:10 am

And O’Brian’s Law, which states that Murphy was an optimist.

Reply to  Bill Powers
January 18, 2018 11:10 pm

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” – (addition: by useful idiots payed with taxpayers money….)

January 18, 2018 6:33 am

The AGU needs a clinical intervention. This self-destructive, self-hating nonsense is either going to stop, or its going to stop them. CAGW is already collapsing around the world, imagine a future AGU board, not far distant, that is going to have to walk all this nonsense back while still trying to cling to some shred of credibility.

Reply to  Notanist
January 18, 2018 7:47 am

They won’t “walk all this nonsense back”. They cannot ever do that. All of the Western World’s ‘governments’ bar one of course and even their oppositions are in this up to their straining nostrils. As are each and every single scientific institution/academy, once prestigious journal and legacy news outlet. They could never cling to even the merest ghost of a whiff of credibility if they try to walk this back.

And they have been preparing for this for a long time now. Armed with their entrenched and benchmark unfalsifiable ‘climate change’ hypothesis they never need to walk anything back at all. The non-hypothesis covers absolutely everything including new ice ages and they will stick to this forever. They have to and I cannot see any way out. Their credibility may well fall to near zero along with their influence on new sceptical governments and public but they will never walk any of it back.

It’s pure religion and its acolytes certainly waxed and hopefully will wane again but the priesthood will never admit they were wrong.

January 18, 2018 6:40 am

There are lots of nonsensical “new disciplines.” One of my favourites is “nanomedicine.” I also like “chemical biology” and “chemical physics”, terms which were invented long after biochemistry and physical chemistry and thus are perfectly redundant.

January 18, 2018 6:40 am

Do they mean a first strike missile capability against Chinese and Indian coal plants or is it a another give away program for studies and expensive, full-scale bench tests, or simply a masked, dark energy carbon tax?

Andy Pattullo
January 18, 2018 6:41 am

It is a tragedy that organizations that would appear to the public as the face of scientific progress are now simply mouthpieces for a new global religion that believes humans control the weather and must pay extortionate amounts of wealth to atone.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
January 18, 2018 6:53 am

They are doing a great job at educating the public on the decline of institutions and professional orgs. Otherwise it would have a silent decay process with much less awareness.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
January 18, 2018 7:10 am

Generally, old or new religions/movements do not bother me unless they attempt to pick the pockets of non-members. The climate alarmists are demanding we all tithe to their religion, and that is not going to end well.

Reply to  Stan Vinson
January 18, 2018 8:17 am


Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
January 18, 2018 7:23 pm

Modern Lysenkoism pure and simple.

Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 6:56 am

I had forecast that by now (almost a decade after Climategate) there would be some new alternative scientific journals giving more voice to transparent, untainted empirical, apolitical, objective studies in climate science. The alternative of rehabilitating a totally politically corrupted international system was rejected at once. I visualized even the venerable universities were obeying repair and needed creation of new institutions leaving the others to wither on the vine. A multi-centennial history would become a handicap.

We have the NIPCC of course, which has done an excellent job of getting the word out that there is a sizable alternative view to the government-academia-industrial complex monolith and that there are highly educated scholars with impeccable qualifications- including a large number of non asterisked Nobel Laureates in physics. However, I underestimated the the power of Alinsky’s Rules on a designer-brained product arising from the global lefty takeover of the education system.

The entire modern left, and too large a portion of the right in the elitist swampy category, would diagnose as dillusional in an honest evaluation. A Trump is the answer to right the ship but I wish he wouldn’t operate as his own worst opposition so much of the time. The job to be done needs full focus.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 18, 2018 6:58 am

“beyond repair” it should read.

Mihaly Malzenicky
January 18, 2018 6:58 am

We should be aware that despite all the deficiencies and the controversial functioning of the scientific community, it is the least stupid congregation. There are mistakes, for example, that mainstream science is still not researching a cold fusiony, even though the discovery has been done in 1989.

Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
January 18, 2018 7:04 am

The discovery was discredited.

Reply to  Sheri
January 18, 2018 7:55 am

Yabut that was just plain old ‘cold fusion’. Mihaly is talking about the awesome ‘cold fusiony’.

Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
January 18, 2018 7:35 am

Cold fusion was an experimental error. It was falsified several times.

Reply to  sailboarder
January 18, 2018 9:13 am

Can recommend Parks book Vodoo Science.

Reply to  sailboarder
January 18, 2018 10:07 am

SB, actually, the mistake was calling the observable phenomenon cold fusion. The phenomenon is real, it is verifiable several ways the most significant being transmutations, and is related to the weak force not the strong force so there is no Coulomb barrier to overcome. The theoretical explanation was provided by Widom/Larsen in 2006. Whether it can be turned into something useful remains to be seen. Wrote this up as a long example in The Arts of Truth ebook.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sailboarder
January 18, 2018 10:12 am

sailboarder and others,
You might want to look into why Stanford Research Institute spent years and millions of dollars running multiple, duplicate experiments, continuing even after a researcher was killed by an explosion in the lab. The problem appears to be something more subtle than “experimental error,” such as impurities in the palladium either quenching reactions, or catalyzing reactions. The cells that produced excess heat typically showed eroded electrodes, whereas the erosion was missing in the cells that didn’t produce excess heat. My information was from the person in charge of the lab at SRI in the early-’90s.

Reply to  sailboarder
January 18, 2018 12:10 pm

Clyde, Widom Larsen theory explains the SRI results produced for the Edison Electric Institute. Was not impurities. Was the microstructure of the palladium wire. SPAWR was able to get fully reproducible results by going to sputteredelectrodes that reliably produced the microfracture defects needed to create ‘heavy’ electrons.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
January 18, 2018 10:35 am

Sorry, fusion, auto additions …

January 18, 2018 7:01 am

I lost all respect for AGU when they showcased Sarah Myhre this last go round.

Reply to  icisil
January 18, 2018 10:08 am

I checked out after learning that dishonest Peter Gleick chaired their ethics committee.

Reply to  ristvan
January 18, 2018 11:43 am

I dunno. He’s pretty knowledgeable about how to avoid them….

January 18, 2018 7:05 am

I think we should go with the Precautionary Principle: Anything we do might make it worse so do nothing. Doing nothing might make it worse, so do something. Doing something could be harmfu, do nothing. Doing….

Reply to  Sheri
January 18, 2018 9:53 am

From near the beginning of the AGU Revision
“Deep reductions in these emissions must be central to any policy response to the dangers of
climate change”
and end
“Public sector research programs are essential to ensuring transparency and an adequate coverage and level of research support.”

From the AGU White Paper
“While much can be learned from laboratory and modeling research, AGU finds that robust AM research programs must recognize that important advances in knowledge may also require field experiments. Decisions about where and how to conduct field experiments are best left to competent authorities that already oversee such questions; where adequate national oversight does not exist, active efforts will be needed to build that capacity. This approach of relying on national regulatory oversight should be evaluated regularly with experience.”

If one knew zero about climate science, it would still look like politics. Maybe more so.

Sheri is correct. Actual competent authorities are not so certain about their competence and that of government. Have seen this many times before–keep out, this is my domain!!

G. Karst
Reply to  Sheri
January 18, 2018 10:04 am

Sometimes, keeping one’s hands in one’s pockets is the hardest (but the best) thing to do. GK

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Sheri
January 18, 2018 4:17 pm

I believe medical doctors prescribe (used to?) to the aphorism “First, do no harm.” This is a golden oldie that they probably dropped because it came from old white guys – the uncategorized bin of nondiversity criminals. Geez, if only they hadn’t invented the age of enlightenment and the scientific method, industrial revolution, age of exploration all those machines, chocolate ice cream… Ive tried to plead innocent that I wasn’t even around when this nefarious business was a foot and I cowardly offered that Madame Curie had done it too, but they insist on requiring for me a life of atonement and self-hatred while Marie Curie and all her sisters can stick around and bust a few glass ceilings (although it seems you need more than a pointy head to do that). Gee, I’m kind of a sweet guy, really. Couldn’t I just serve a weekend collecting trash along the highways and promising never to mess with enlightenment again? Heck, I’m eighty this year – doesn’t that make me a diverse old guy.

Jacob Frank
January 18, 2018 7:10 am

These people have a serious psychological condition, and they scare the shit out of me.

Ron Long
January 18, 2018 7:10 am

As a career Mining Exploration Geologist, with 46 years experience, I have many geophysicists as friends and professional cohorts. NONE of them are dysfunctional like the AGU. What gives? Where do these professional associations end up when they veer down the path of Political Science and abandon actual Science? Hard to imagine my professional geophysicists friends tolerating this nonsense.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Ron Long
January 18, 2018 9:49 am

Ron. Look at the credentials of the signatories. Not one is a geologist practicing in industry. That’s the issue. Too many researchers and not enough workers.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
January 18, 2018 10:20 am

Ron Long,
I know from personal experience how difficult it is to get people to volunteer to run organizations. Typically, it is motivations other than altruism that encourage people to step up. We need to understand the motivation behind the current AGU officers. Most Progressives are disappointed that the world doesn’t work the way they think it should. They, therefore, take it upon themselves to ‘save’ the world from itself. It might be overreach to suggest that these people are suffering from a ‘Messiah Complex,” but it probably isn’t too far off the mark.

Ron Long
Reply to  Ron Long
January 18, 2018 10:58 am

Ben and Clyde, I understand your comments. It is the membership that needs to tell their “leaders” to get the train back on the tracks. Again, all of my geophysicists friends and cohorts are professional people and I cannot imagine they appreciate their “leaders” engaging in this nonsense.

CC Reader
January 18, 2018 7:13 am

The title says it all. Please feed my family”, I worked real hard to get this degree and without AGW I will not be invited to parties

“American Geophysical Union urges research programs on climate intervention to better understand the risks and opportunities”

tom s
January 18, 2018 7:23 am

These idiots are a dangerous lot. I say this as an operational meteorologist in the field over 30yrs. So they want to mess with the albedo do they? I have little respect for these pencil necked geeks.

Walter Sobchak
January 18, 2018 7:35 am

“We know the climate is changing, humans are responsible for most of the increase in temperature over the past half century, and that emissions reductions must play a key role in policy moving forward.”

This is 3 propositions.:

1. “the climate is changing”
2. “humans are responsible for most of the increase in temperature over the past half century
3. “emissions reductions must play a key role in policy moving forward.”

How does 3 follow from 1 and 2? Do one and two require a policy? Maybe there is nothing to be done about it. Maybe it is a good thing.

What the warmunists really need is a coherent argument.

John M
January 18, 2018 7:38 am

Hope they have good liability insurance.

Imagine these brilliant folks had “intervened” in November in order to cause a “normal” North American winter.

They’d be lucky not to face criminal charges let alone financial lawsuits.

January 18, 2018 7:40 am

Was it not the IPCC in AR5 who concluded that “more than half” of recent warming has been caused by human actions? AGU has now found some wondrous evidence that boosts it to “most.” I wonder what the evidence is.

Reply to  DHR
January 18, 2018 9:20 am

…”more than half” is literally the definition of “most”. Most means >50%.

Their best estimate for the human-caused warming was a little over 100%, by the way. Which I think has gone up as solar has cooled in the last 10-15 years. (The Earth “should” be cooling; it would be cooling without human influence).

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Windchaser
January 18, 2018 4:23 pm

It is cooling (we had an el nino that interrupted almost 2 decades of some cooling despite over a 30% increase in CO2 during that time. I guess you joined the debate AFTER Karlization of temperatures to erase the “hiatus”.

A C Osborn
Reply to  DHR
January 18, 2018 12:44 pm

The answer to that is quite simple. Adjustements.
They openly admit that the “Quality” adjustements have added at least 0.5C to the 20th Century Warming Trend.

A C Osborn
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 18, 2018 12:44 pm

Sorry “Adjustments”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 18, 2018 4:28 pm

Yeah, but 1937 was warmer than 1998 until it was adjusted downwards by GISS under Hansen in 2007! Interestingly, this US temperature pattern was coincident with the same patterns in Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, Siberia and in the Southern Hemisphere South Africa, Uraguay, Bolivia…. Visit Paul Homewood’s site “notalotofpeopleknowthat”.

January 18, 2018 7:42 am

Why don’t we practice on Venus first?

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Jeanparisot
January 18, 2018 2:15 pm

Nicolov and Zeller have it booked solid for all of 2018. And provisionally Jan 2019 is the Nobel Party. Have a word with the Mice see if they have a “spare”.

January 18, 2018 7:43 am

The day we have the knowledge and power to do any “climate intervention” , the following day the real climate war begins, and you make joke about the new cold war being so hot you wish it wasn’t so cold.

January 18, 2018 7:44 am

Sounds to me that the AGU needs more grant money!

January 18, 2018 7:45 am
Reply to  Latitude
January 18, 2018 7:52 am

What a pile of unsubstantiated statements.

Reply to  Latitude
January 18, 2018 9:12 am

the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the ultimate authority on climate science

“Ultimate authority” would not be my opinion.


January 18, 2018 8:09 am

Progressives are Out Of Touch on a Biblical Scale; NAACP Should Demand Re-Direction of Climate Change Funding to Inner-Cities

The social and economic statics of the black community are horrifying, and yet on MLK day 2018, the NAACP claims that “MLK’s Vision Can’t Be Achieved Without Fighting Global Warming.” This, out of all examples, highlights the complete and absolute corrupting force that Climate Change has become. No example I have found demonstrates the absurdity of Climate Change Policy more than the NAACP betraying those whom they claim to represent, and putting the needs of the Democratic Party above them.

Bruce Cobb
January 18, 2018 8:20 am

Dear God, not this geoengineering crap again.

January 18, 2018 8:45 am

I think the warming is grossly exaggerated and co2 is actually good for the biosphere.

But if some insist that we need to do something, then geo engineering is the solution. It is much cheaper than cutting fossil fuels and keeps jobs.

Geo engineering is already done. For example release of genetically modified crops and mosquitoes is a form of geo engineering.

Reply to  Stevek
January 18, 2018 9:01 am

The problem is messing with ecology usually has unforeseen and highly deleterious consequences – see rabbits, cane toads, rats etc. If people begin adopting that kind of ill-informed high risk strategy with the entire planet then that is the day I go full Rebel Alliance.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Stevek
January 18, 2018 9:22 am

Geoengineering solves nothing, as there is nothing that needs solving, and is both expensive and possibly dangerous. It is piling stupidity on top of stupidity.

January 18, 2018 9:09 am

At a minimum, this shows that some of the useful idiots are getting of script.

In the 70’s one of the talking points was that we can’t (or shouldn’t) try to fix global cooling with technical means … we need to change our behavior.

With global warming the main goal was changing the world economy; and the main point was/is that we need to change our behavior (and/or pay $ to have it changed for us).

Let ’em get off script. Just watch ’em and make sure that they don’t get out of control. Pat them on the back an say:

“sure, good thinking outside the box … keep it up; when we as a global society decide, with complete consensus, what the temperature and sea level should optimally be and you guys can get us there we’ll do it.”

January 18, 2018 9:23 am

We know . . . humans are responsible for most of the increase in temperature over the past half century . . . .

This statement is not based on facts but belief. We might claim that humans are responsible for affecting the climate, and their contribution lies somewhere between 0% and 100%. After that, it’s just as wrong to say it’s exactly 5% or 95%. Even splitting the difference and saying it’s 50% is wrong. We actually don’t know the exact contribution–it’s made-up hysteria.


Reply to  Jim Masterson
January 18, 2018 9:37 am

+100 Jim

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Jim Masterson
January 18, 2018 9:48 am

Oh but the carefully adjusted and tuned outputs from GCMs tell them it is so.
The evil MagicMolecule™️ must be defeated.
Onward with the Climate Crusades.
And new taxes must be levied to pay for the Geo-engineered cleansing.

(Truly, we are in a Dark Ages of science. )

Reply to  Jim Masterson
January 18, 2018 10:25 am

Ever since someone bit into that stupid apple we have been evil and need to be punished. There are always those willing to do the preaching and the punishing. Climate alarmism is just an excuse for the punishment.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Jim Masterson
January 18, 2018 12:48 pm

Jim, see my remark above, the Man Made part is the Adjustments to the data adding at least 0.5C to the 20th Century trend.

January 18, 2018 9:42 am

Climate intervention could play a key role in managing the effects of climate change but our scientific understanding of its impacts remains poor.

So, when it comes to things that humans are doing that affect climate, they insist that they can accurately predict their impacts because they know exactly how climate works. But when it comes to things that humans might do on purpose, they don’t understand how the climate works well enough well enough to predict the impacts because they don’t know exactly how climate works.


January 18, 2018 10:09 am

What I don’t get is how the information shows that 99.95% of Carbon Dioxide is from Natural Sources. This is all Flora and Fauna that has exponentially increased since the end of the last Glacial Maximum. This is exponentially greening the earth from micro-flora to giant redwoods and exponentially increasing all the micro-fauna to whales. Humans and many species of animals are also increasing in size/weight because of the more abundant flora they injest and that carbon is what builds every cell in animals, just as all Flora cells are carbon based. Flora dies and carbon dioxide is released back into the environment. Humans like all fauna exhale more carbon dioxide than we inhale.

Only around 0.03% of human contributors to the mass of Carbon Dioxide in the environment is from Fossil Fuels that we get all our energy from to better our lives and that of nature. That makes 99.95 go to 99.97% of the increase of Carbon Dioxide in the environment comes from nature including soil respiration, volcanoes and the largest source is the exchange between the Atmosphere and the Oceans and 0.02% from other human sources of cement manufacturing, industrial activities and deforestation.

That 0.03% is what is being attacked for causing all this “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” because the Atmosphere has 2 ppm averages of Carbon Dioxide increase per year, over the 60 year’s it has been measured. And as I’ve shown, only about 0.03% is from Fossil Fuels. That the world governments have been demonizing. Increasing taxes and your cost of living for the energy we all want to better our existence. That fund’s those governments war on fossil fuels that they know we are depending upon and will pay the price to have it…

And that is the biggest SCAM that has been pulled on you, a citizen of your country. For a Fake War on Fossil Fuels that that 0.03% is not going to make any significant difference in Global Warming and Climate Change.

[4% or 0.04 percent? .mod]

David Hoopman
January 18, 2018 10:14 am

I’m afraid most of us are getting a bit deep into the weeds here. “Climate Intervention Requires Enhanced Research, Consideration of Societal and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Development.” has a very simple and familiar translation: “Give Us More Money.”

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  David Hoopman
January 18, 2018 1:47 pm

It’s worse than we thought/think! There are numerous villages with multiple idiots! Who knew?

January 18, 2018 10:15 am

‘Humans are responsible’. That warmunist belief has foundered on the rocks of reality. Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, there has been no significant warming this century (except by Karlization). Yet that period comprises ~35% of all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 (inception of Keeling curve).

January 18, 2018 10:16 am

Why fool with geoengineering whe we have a reliable natural control system already. Higher ground level temp….more evaporation….makes more clouds….reflecting more sunlight into space….causing ground level temp to fall again. If it wasn’t that way we would have been venus or snowball earth for millions of years already.

January 18, 2018 11:06 am

At least the internet will provide a good record of all the scam organizations involved in the world’s greatest science policy mistake in history. The AMO will humble them all. They should be humbled and repentant.

January 18, 2018 11:23 am

Which story is it that Doublespeak is used? Not 1984.

Don’t go off the rails here. Go back to this part of that missive up at the top:

“Climate intervention could play a key role in managing the effects of climate change but our scientific understanding of its impacts remains poor. More research to understand it’s full risks and opportunities will be vital to a more informed public policy.”

I’m going to break this down a little bit.

1 – Climate intervention: well, ‘climate’ is a long-term event, requiring considerable stamina and attention to detail, and a group of people willing to devote their entire lives and those of their children and children’s children and all possible descendants to recording and reporting the results of any proposed intervention, IF it is actually put into effect. So try to imagine Giacomo, your great-great grandson, being told that he has to study climate data results instead of pioneering a new settlement on Proxima Centauri b’s small, cold planet. All he wants to do is get the H E double hockeysticks away from this silly planet Earth. I’m referring to several generations of people required to provide a consistent result, sort of like the Medieval Guilds system. And Giacomo ain’t happy about the destiny that Mama and Papa have in store for him.
2 – ‘could play a role’: dithering there, maybe it could work, maybe not, but we need money to find out.
3 – ‘but our scientific understanding of its impacts remains poor’: well, they’re either too lazy to pay attention to their own data and analyze it (which can be quite boring) or they really are playing the shell game with any suckers that walk past the table.
4 – ‘More research to understand its full risks and opportunities will be vital to a more informed public policy.’ More research means ‘Gimme more money, I don’t want to leave the cushy office I’m in and go find a job in the field. I hate bugs and flowers make me sneeze, and I’m afraid of hail storms and thundersnow.’

So while all of you are getting your backs up and pawing the ground and snorting, this release is plainly a begging letter for more money, ostensibly for more research, which will be followed by another begging letter for more money, and so on and so on and so on, ad nauseum.

Anyone with any sense would shut this stuff down and tell them the cash flow ends now.

CD in Wisconsin
January 18, 2018 11:36 am

“We know the climate is changing, humans are responsible for most of the increase in temperature over the past half century, and that emissions reductions must play a key role in policy moving forward.” said David Victor, Ph.D., chair of the Climate Intervention Position Statement Task Force for AGU. “Climate intervention could play a key role in managing the effects of climate change but our scientific understanding of its impacts remains poor. More research to understand it’s full risks and opportunities will be vital to a more informed public policy.”

Unbelievable level of arrogance and over-inflated egos at the AGU. Head need to roll.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 18, 2018 11:36 am

Heads (plural).

January 18, 2018 11:48 am

What could possibly go wrong?

January 18, 2018 11:54 am

If AGU were to become a co-litigant with deBlasio and deBlasio looses which looks very certain then AGU can be considered a Failed Experiment just like cold fusion.

Ha ha

January 18, 2018 1:22 pm

This sciencey stuff is easy peasy. You just notice extreme weather is the number one problem-
and get some grants to fix it.

Reply to  observa
January 18, 2018 4:48 pm

Good point. I live in Harvey land. Just heard a report on Corpus Christi TV about flooding of a government office in Port Aransas. The surge there was not particularly high. Barrier Islands in hurricane land are very inhospitable places even with current considerable subsidy. Similar problems with government (and many other) structures in Rockport, inland on a Pleistocene barrier island. Last severe storm, Celia, in 1970. Working backward, if it repeats forward, not much time to prepare. Sea level change trivial. It was a very exceptional storm, based on the tree damage, a long time coming .

Port Aransas, maximum elevation around 4-5 meters, most of town below 3. Rough median distance to Gulf of Mexico less than a kilometer, however somewhat well protected by significant sand dunes. The whole area has considerable, mostly ignored, exceptional quantity and quality of scientific talent in geology and other relevant sciences and engineering. Even me, who has been at sea at the edge of a tropical storm.

Charlie Bates
January 18, 2018 7:14 pm

So when do they admit that they been spraying crap in the atmosphere for decades? Talk about liability!

January 18, 2018 11:15 pm

If someone could lower the albedo around my snow laden house for, let’s say 3-4 months starting now, i’d be much obliged 😉

%d bloggers like this: