Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.
By Steinar Brandslet
The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological
“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.
The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.
Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.
Untested, uncertain, and risky
Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more CO2 by planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?
“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.
In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.
Stumbling blocks
Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.
Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.
How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.
We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.
NETs and airy plans
So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.
Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.
Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.
And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.
“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.
No substitutes for cutting emissions
Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.
Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.
The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.
The paper:
Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3
Get the loonies back into the asylum where they belong.
All this stuff is so nutty that it makes me want to cry. It may well be that in trying to engineer a reduction in greenhouse gases, we may be unwittingly exacerbating a natural cooling of the planet that could be occurring now or at some time in the future. We don’t know which way the planet’s temperature is heading due to natural causes. Given the enormous cost to date of so-called renewables and their pathetically small impact on global fossil fuel use, we should abandon this useless exercise and assume that future generations will adapt to whatever the climate has to offer.
Look up the film Snowpiercer.
It’s 2018, I take offense to your use of reason and logic.
The problem is both sides are taking layman and stupid industry and climate science ideas and if the world really had to do it you would ask proper hard scientists to put forward suggestions. As an example there are lots of options from the quantum field targeting either CO2 or one of the other gases and changing either it’s emission properties or optical transparency. Would you find it discussed in climate science, no because no-one in the field would understand how things like quantum interference can be used to change transparency.
As I have always said you can tell Climate Science isn’t really about science because you have a Quantum problem and don’t have QM scientists front and centre. Climate Science is about measuring enviromental things and social politics it is not about solving anything.
I fail to see the sense in your comments.
Quantum determines the specific energy that a C=O bond absorbs and emits energy. Typically an absorption-emission band (e.g. at 15 micron) has many specific quantum levels on either side of the 15 um band, each with a slightly different vibration or rotation transition, and depend on overall bond energy level. These are in the chemical nature of the CO2 molecule.
IF you have a way of significantly changing these properties, spectral chemists would love to hear it. Further (even if possible), a small shift in the IR emission energy would only place the absorption-emission in another part of the overall surface emission spectrum, where results could be little changed.
All this stuff is so nutty.
Nutty? nutty?
I will have you know a lot of late night drinking went into formulating these solutions to a critical problem.
Good thinking Trebla.
Accepting the IPCC’s hypothesis of runaway global warming and then suggesting antidotes is wrong on at least two counts:
1, There is no credible evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing dangerous runaway global warming or wilder weather. There is ample evidence that this hypothesis is false.
2, Proposing extremely expensive solutions to a non-problem is a sign of not just incompetence, but insanity.
Common sense tells us we have little to no impact (at least when it comes to CO2 and the climate.
“The forces of nature are so great compared to anything man can do that it is absurd to think that we can control anything with regard to climate change”
“More and more people who look into this – particularly people who have some background in science or engineering or physics…the more they realize that it is totally off the wall.” – John Theon, Phd. Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist
Geoengineering to address the non problem of CO2 emissions is dangerously fraught with unintended consequences. The best we could hope for is no effect costing lots of money, while the more likely result would be harm to the planet combined with definite financial harm to the humans living on it.
co2isnotevil
The concept terrifies me.
You forgot the hashtag.
I have no problem at all with geoengineering, just not on my planet, and not using my money.
FIFY: Our planet…Our money
I’ve claimed the entire planet.
Now I need to someone besides the dog to agree with me.
CO2,yes and even talking about this approach is playing by the alarmist’s rules. Ridicule them, but don’t engage, or their ruse has worked. They are not stupid, they are clever propagandists and manipulators.
There’s an interesting connection to the broken feedback analysis. Mike MacCracken is a strong proponent of geoengineering that he shared with John Holdren and Rosina Bierbaum as evidenced in climategate email 1231190304.txt.
To quote Schlesinger in an email response to me,
“Do you know that I ‘invented’ feedback analysis for climate studies,
from my background as an engineer, this as published in the 1985 DOE
State of the Art report edited by Mike MacCracken and Fred Luther:”
Hansen’s paper was published in 1984 and is referenced by Schlesinger in the DOE report. As best as I can tell, the paper in this report was only ‘edited’ and never actually subject to adequate peer review because when I asked MacCracken who did the peer review on Schlesinger’s paper, he said that it was him and Luther and I know for sure MacCracken had a limited understand of feedback, most of which he gained from Schlesinger. Luther passed away shortly after in 1985. He had no relevant feedback experience either as his expertise was atmospheric modeling and was a strong advocate for regulatory action against CO2 emissions and participated in early groups leading up to the IPCC. A version of the paper subsequently found it’s way into a textbook prepared by Schlesinger in the late 80’s.
This paper was never subject to rigorous peer review yet it comprised the theoretical justification for the formation of the IPCC and is still referenced to this day as an authoritative work on climate feedback. The more recent paper by Roe echoes the same errors Schlesinger made. These were ignoring both preconditions for using Bode’s analysis and confusing the feedback factor with the feedback fraction.
Schlesinger’s errors could have been caught by a rigorous peer review, Roe’s errors were not caught because Schlesinger’s errors set the gold standard.
Schlesinger has since passed, Roe needs to step up and fix this. Roe might be the only person in all of climate science who could set this right where the results would be accepted by the alarmists.
“. . . where the results would be accepted by the alarmists . . .”
Proof of anything doesn’t matter to alarmists. Their agenda differs from what they proffer to the public.
It might not matter to an alarmist troll driven by ideology, but those few alarmists who are legitimate scientists can be swayed with unambiguous scientific evidence and it wouldn’t take more than one or two high profile scientists to flip before a skeptical tsunami buries the alarmists.
If Roe were to correct the Hansen/Schlesinger feedback fubar, the IPCC will need to invent something else to support a high enough ECS to cause alarm. On this they will fail, as the laws of physics are quite clear on the constraints placed on the actual ECS. Anything more than 2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing is unconditionally precluded, The high end of the IPCC’s estimated ECS exceeds this limit by more than a factor of 3 and even the low end of their range exceeds the theoretical maximum ECS. They express the ECS in terms of a temperature change only to hide this most obvious inconsistency with the claimed ECS.
The current response is 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 f forcing and well within the theoretical limit. There’s no escaping the logic and physics driving this upper limit. Many have tried and all have failed. The physics and the data just doesn’t lie.
Co2: It would be more of interest if you could show the why and wherefore of this “limit’ on ECS. I think observations over the past decade or more appear to show that the effect of feedback is pretty inconsequential for sure, but a WUWT articke would get broad interest, particularly from the CAGW proponent side.
Monckton appeared to be onto something regarding the error in not counting the effect on global temps of the presence of CO2 existing prior to anthropo additions, thereby exaggerating their ECS which should have been discounted properly.
My problem with his work is it is presented as if Bode’s feedback in electronic curcuits has unquestionable 1:1 application to clinate. I’m an engineer and I can see it used as an analogy but l would need more convincing to go further than that. Are you basing your thinking on Bode’s feedback equation?
Gary,
The limit on the feedback is set because half of the surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere are returned to the surface and the remaining half are sent into space. It’s simply a matter of available energy. The upper bound is when the atmosphere absorbs 100% of what the surface emits.
If Psun is the average post albedo solar input flux, Psurf is the average emissions by the surface, Pout is the average power emitted by the planet, Pfb is the absorbed power feedback to the surface making it warmer than the Psun can do on its own and A is the fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere.
Psurf = Psun + Pfb = oT^4
Pfb = A/2 Psurf
Pout = (1 – A)Psurf + Pfb
The upper limit is when A == 1, which requires Pfb == Psun, thus the feedback is equal to the forcing at maximum possible feedback and Psurf is limited to twice Psun. You should notice see how these equations are the model predictions of the relationships between Psun, Pout and T shown by the green and magenta lines in the plots I referred to earlier and conformance to the data is unambiguous. This was the subject of an article I wrote for WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/05/physical-constraints-on-the-climate-sensitivity/
All this being said, when CO2 is said to be 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing, it’s not forcing in the strictest sense, but equivalent forcing, which means that doubling CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 more post albedo forcing power from the Sun keeping CO2 concentrations constant.
Regarding Bode, look at another of my articles:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/
The bottom line is that Bode doesn’t apply to the climate because the climate system is not linear and there’s no implicit power supply (i.e. it’s a passive circuit and not an active amplifier and temperature is not even approximately linear to forcing). These are the 2 preconditions set forth in the first 2 paragraphs of Bode’s book and neither is honored, yet the climate feedback model per Hansen, Schlesinger and Roe are all explicitly based on a 1:1 correspondence with the Bode LINEAR feedback amplifier model and this is why Monckton did the same thing. My position is that the Bode model doesn’t apply PERIOD
>>
. . . half of the surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere are returned to the surface and the remaining half are sent into space.
<<
That would be a good first estimate. If you model the atmosphere greenhouse effect (modeling is a bad term on this site), then it’s more like 60% downward and 40% upward. Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 has it at 37.6% upward and 62.4% downward. That’s pretty close to what a multiple layered model would produce.
Jim
Gary,
The larger fraction down is because Trenberth counts the return of latent heat and thermals which are not actually in the form of photons and in the case of latent heat and thermal, 100% of that energy is returned to the surface. Latent heat, thermals plus the return to that energy the surface has a zero sum influence on the LTE surface temperature. In other words, this non radiant energy plus its return to the surface has no effect on the surface temperature other than any effect it’s already having on the average temperature.
If you restrict the analysis to how radiation is distributed, the 50/50 split emerges. Two proxies I’ve developed show that it varies by a few percent on either side of 50/50, but the average is 50/50 within the accuracy of the data.
(I assume you meant to direct your comment to me and not Gary.)
>>
If you restrict the analysis to how radiation is distributed, the 50/50 split emerges.
<<
In a multilayered model, the layers near the surface interact with the other layers and the surface. The outer layers interact with the other layers and space. Once radiation escapes to space, it is lost from this interaction. An analogy would be the level of water behind a dam that has just broken. The water level near the break in the dam would be lower than the level far from the dam.
I also don’t see where KT 1997 shows the latent and sensible heat returning to the surface as latent and sensible heat. I’m not sure how that would work even if they did.
Jim
Jim,
The majority of latent heat is returned to the surface as liquid water that’s a bit warmer than it would be otherwise. Thermals are returned as sinking cold air somewhere else on the surface. It’s crucial to recognize that these influences only redistribute existing energy within the atmosphere, but do not otherwise affect the radiant balance or the ECS.
When water evaporates from the surface, heat is removed from the surface cooling it and when water condenses in a cloud, the droplet it condenses upon is heated by the phase change from vapor to liquid. Most of the latent heat not returned to the surface as relatively warmer rain and snow is returned as the energy driving the weather. To the extent that atmospheric water radiates and contributes to the radiation leaving the planet or returning to the surface, it doesn’t matter, as the amount of radiation sent into space or back to the surface is predetermined based on COE making the specific origin of those photons irrelevant.
The sensible heat stored by the surface is the state of the system and proportional to the temperature. Ultimately, enough of this leaves the planet to offset the arriving radiation. About 25% leaves directly through the transparent window in the atmosphere and the remaining is temporarily stored in GHG’s and clouds before either leaving the planet or returning to the surface.
You seem to have accepted the premise that the complexities of the atmosphere are enough to make the laws of physics moot. I can’t accept that and the laws of physics must apply to both the macroscopic and microscopic behaviors of the surface, planet and the atmosphere.
This macroscopic radiant behavior is completely characterized by the macroscopic radiant behavior of two surfaces, one between the surface whose temperature we care about and the bottom of the atmosphere and the other is the surface between the top of the atmosphere and space. While the microscopic behavior of the atmosphere manifests the macroscopic behaviors, the macroscopic behaviors are dictated by orthogonal laws of physics. Climate models and climate science in general tends to concentrate on the microscopic behavior and hope that the proper macroscopic behavior emerges, rather than constraining the microscopic behavior based on the required macroscopic behavior.
The LTE behavior between TOA and space is easily quantified as 239 W/m^2 photons arriving and 239 W/m^2 of photons leaving.
The radiant behavior of the surface at the bottom of the atmosphere is a little trickier, but can be readily quantified by an average temperature and its corresponding emissions. Trenberth added an unnecessary level of obfuscation by conflating the energy transported by photons with the energy transported by matter, where only the energy transported by photons contributes to the RADIANT balance. The deception is easily unwound once you notice that the effect on the state from the latent heat, thermals plus the return of this energy to the surface is already embodied by the surface temperature and its radiant emissions thus has a zero-sum influence on the incremental behavior. Subtract the return of latent heat and thermals from the ‘back radiation’ term and all that’s left is the energy flux offsetting the photon emissions of the planet at its average temperature.
With both surfaces characterized by radiation fluxes, the sensitivity can be trivially established as the change in surface emissions relative to a change in solar forcing using only COE and the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW and then convert this change in surface emissions into a change in temperature.
The IPCC holds on to this notion of excess complexity, because to acknowledge otherwise precludes their reason to exist.
You’d think it would be obvious – molten salt nuclear reactors. And electric cars, which are coming in force without need for govt subsidies..
Kent, I prefer to stay carbon-energy-based and learn to appreciate the greening world. When we get up to 2,000 ppm CO2, and cows are as big as the large herbivore dinosaurs were, we can talk.
Sauropods or ornithischians?
NB: Image is of the longest sauropods, not the largest.
“..longest sauropods, not the largest” Either way, that would make a stellar rack of ribs, yum!
They couldn’t physiologically achieve that size unless the atmosphere were denser at the surface.
Increasing the percentage of O2 would have the same affect.
Dinosaurs had more efficient lungs as well.
Cows are just the right size.
Buffalo suffer fences only because they want to; when they decide they don’t want to, you need to repair a lot of fencing.
Electric cars will always need government subsidies.
These guys have too much money and too little to do if they have to do studies to understand that geoengineering ideas of CO2 sequestration are useless.
These clowns need to look at the OCO-2 data, with the its clear depiction of seasonal global flows of gigatons of carbon dioxide, to truly understand what a massive effort of required to stuff even a few megatons every year of CO2 would mean….that is, absolutely nothing in the big picture. Engineering a massive CO2 sequestration effort wouldn’t even amount to a 3 decimal place rounding error in calculating the true global flows of CO2.
They only get published because they genuflect to the CO2 emissions dogma via: “The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions.”
Joel O: Heck, the “Great Greening” has sucked up a number of years worth of anthropo emmissions over the past 30 years. Increased ‘leafing’ has been ~18%, forest cover gas expanded 15% (there are 3 trillion trees on the planet so this us huge). Moreover, it is an endothermic reaction so giving alarmists their theory, not only has some future warming been prevented, the sequestration itself has cooled the planet modestly. Furthermore, it is an exponential process. Probably a bit off the wall to point out that “carbon” atmospheric accummulations appear to be slowing and it coincides with the “Pause” or temperature rise deceleration.
Yes, I agree with them running around planting trees is silly, but certainly the “Great Greening ^тм” is a comforting development that IS significant.
I have been hearing a lot about these schemes to “save the Planet” at conferences lately and they terrify me. The potential for unintended consequences is huge and could be devastating. But despite not really having any idea at all of what could happen, there are people who will still try to implement these geoengineering “fixes” for something that is not even broken.
Geoengineering is, and always has been, their favorite “solution” to a non-problem to kick under the bus. Their favorite “solution” is climate cash. Lots and lots of climate cash. Oh, and unicorns and rainbows for energy.
Just thinking about the number of bad ideas presented here is staggering, considering the variety of unintended consequences that could occur. Next, they will propose to take all green growing things, bury them in an anoxic environment, so it can’t oxidize into CO2, and store it there for generations. Nature did this in the past with the end result of peat, lignite, coal, kerogen, gas, and oil, and we are now benefiting from the energy stored in the past.
Historically, we have migrated from one energy source to another when it became economically favorable to do so. Burning trees, then coal, then whale oil, then coal oil, then petroleum products. This was followed by hydroelectric and nuclear. I’m not sure I understand their vision of progress – using less and less economically viable solutions as we move forward through time – seems backwards to me.
so now they want us to pay to remove China’s CO2
“Injecting particles into the atmosphere to reflect more of the sun’s radiation . . . still untested, uncertain, risky . . . present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems. . .”
First clue nugunga geojismalhagoissdaing (Korean for somebody’s lying.) They’ve been at this about two decades now.
Why am I not surprised? Nothing can be allowed to get in the way of the socialist utopia that the elitists intend to impose on us via control of our sources of energy. Emissions reductions is simply their latest way of controlling the masses.
Let’s remember the definition of the AGW from Dr. Richard Lindzen:
“An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.”
This is O level stuff. Give them a C pass and send them off to bed.
But as usual they’re ignoring the elephant in the room — cutting emissions by using less fossil fuels has its *own* risks, specifically of causing way more economic damage than they prevent, even before applying an appropriate discount rate.
The logical thing to do would be to study what would *really* solve climate woes — have fossil-fueled economic growth make developing countries rich enough that the minor impacts from a slightly warmer world can be easily adapted to.
That’s not the only thing they’re ignoring that has its own risks.
(Off topic – My apologies)
The (London) Times (Oct. 11) uncovers Russian plot to scare Westerners about GM crops
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18510
Ah, finally! The truth.
The Ruskies did such as good job mid-Western hog farmers in the U.S., Denmark, and other places stopped feeding it to their pigs.
U.S.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eilDbdLAyFs
Denmark: https://www.gmwatch.org/en/gm-reality/13882-gm-soy-linked-to-health-damage-in-pigs-a-danish-dossier
Ever wondered why low sperm counts, etc., might be a problem for the world these days? Did you know all of the developed nations’ populations are headed towards the bottom of the charts? That the undeveloped major populations are beginning to level? That by 2050 replacing ourselves m-i-g-h-t be a problem?
These people could show their commitment and put their money where their nostrils are and limit or end their own emissions of CO2 . At my great age I shall be doing this sooner rather than later I’m afraid.
I don’t expect any thanks either.
Seriously though 7 billion people —that’s a whole lot of breath.
Yes there is some geoengineering needed.
Earth is getting old, especially earth (small e) is old.
When it gets old it can no longer support plant life.
Places where this has happened are called deserts.
At this point IGNORE what you learned at school – you’ll believe that deserts have crap climates and thus plants don’t grow there. You may even believe that sprinkling water and puffing CO2 into them will produce a verdant garden.
Wrong
Deserts have crap climates because plants don’t grow there and they don’t grow there because there is no food or nutrition for them. It has either blown away in the wind or washed away into the ocean.
Its a Cause & Effect error that we’ve *all* been taught
The nutrition required to make a desert bloom comes simply from rock.
=What mountains and volcanoes are made of.
It is simplicity itself, we already move vast amounts of rock around and we have the machines to mine it, grind it up and spread it around.
Skin the tops off any nearby mountains, grind it up and spread it around.
And THAT is it.
Ma Nature will do the rest.
Some may suggest that that is why we are here – the big brains to work out what gives and then we are the toolmakers and engineers. to fix it.
We are Planet Earth’s ‘carers’ during her old-age.
Things will progress slowly to our liking so:
1. Maybe speed things up by pumping some water in there but only *after* you’ve put some nourishment into the place first. Wasting your time otherwise.
2. Possibly use wind turbines or solar panels to oxidise atmospheric nitrogen and then dissolve it in water. A simple spark generator will suffice. Use the resulting (nitric) acid to soften up the rock a bit
And don’t worry about the mountains. They are like icebergs, most of a mountain is (up to 50 miles underground)
If you skim 12 inches off the top – it will bounce back by at *least* 10 inches.
Sincere apologies to The Warmists – Star Trek technology is NOT required.
I wish I knew where you get this nonsense.
Deserts are deserts because it doesn’t rain there much.
The idea that deserts are barren because they have poor soil is disproven by all the people who make the deserts bloom merely by bringing in water.
Do you honestly believe ground up rock makes good soil? You really should spend some time talking to farmers.
Sorry, but have you been in a desert?
The ones that are not covered in sand (sand being effectively very finely ground up rocks) are covered in ground up rocks.
If you have contracted Mother Nature to ‘do the rest’ I hope you kept your recepts because you are going to need them at the Claims Court.
Climate change activism is really a movement against hydrocarbon fuels. Climate change serves as the enviro harm rationale.
Oh that’s no fun. Let’s do them all with lots of political connections among the grant recipients and with Brazilian-style kickbacks. That would really stir things up.
The problem is not intended to be easily solved, it is intended to be solved only by dismantling the industrial society and as a bonus capitalism.
Venezuela is an excellent example. Look at their fossil fuel reserves with some of the most in the world and their carbon footprint. They are global leaders in reducing CO2 per capita. We should try and emulate them, for sure. A real socialist paradise.
Read recently the average Venezuela citizen has lost 20 pounds under those wonderful folk who brought them their socialist/Marxist utopia.
I find it interesting when warmists propose giant reflectors in orbit or shooting aerosols high into the atmosphere to control the Sun’s effect on climate, while simultaneously claiming that the Sun has no effect on climate…
They’ve been spraying the atmosphere for a couple decades now using aerial tankers. What “official” group decided to do this and not tell the public? Who gave them permission to do it? The people behind the deliberate hosing of the world with strontium, aluminum, barium and a cauldron of god knows what — they know, though — and it’s not about “. . . saving the planet from climate change.” They don’t give a damn about climate change or controlling the sun’s effect on climate. People have pulled the curtain on their backroom operations. Caught red-handed by professionals far sharper than theirs, they’ve shoved all their chips on the table and have essentially told the world “. . . raise, call, or fold . . . we’re all in. Stop us if you can.”
Not the chemtrail nonsense again
seems to me that dealing with the effects of global warming, no matter what the cause, woukd be cheaper than trying to stop it.
if an area, say new orleans, floods, stop building where the water comes.
if an area gets no rain for an extended number of years, say phoenix, move to where it rains more.
if an area is plagued by fires, say southern California, require all buildings be fire proof.
because the changes dealing with climate change could be as slow as the change in the climate itself, the cost COULD be minimal, and based on (GASP) common sense.
The article’s author states: “Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun . . . Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more CO2 by planting millions of trees?”
From this it appears, many people are oblivious to the fact that Mother Nature has her own feedback mechanisms in play and does need human geoengineering (nor man’s associated hubris). To wit:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 [2106].
“An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.”
— source of above-quoted text: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
So, to the extent that mankind is blamed for little/half/most/almost all—take your pick—of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (from 322 to 410 ppm) over the last 50 years, we are already doing geoengineering!
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Woes have taken back seat to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Woes. Only Nature is in denial.
Here’s a couple of interventions that I think should be considered.
Black dust applied to stop advance of ice-age glaciers.
Altering the path of hurricanes by bringing cold water to the surface by air sparging.
You cannot go relying on tree planting and alternative technological solutions to offset Global Warming, we want your money now, all of your money, send it to us now!
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years
Regional war could spark “unprecedented climate change,” experts predict.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/
“Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years”
Yay! Now there is a solution we can all support! Kowabunga!
That’s even more cool than geo-engineering!
Do I really need to say “sarc/off”?
“Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.”
Alarmists tell us the sun has no or little effect on climate. So which is it? But interesting one of the “solutions” is to pump liquid CO2 in to the oceans. Wouldn’t that make them more acidic?
The mind boggles!
“The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.”
One solution is geoengineering to meet, or try to meet, an arbitrary temperature target set by a bunch of politicians.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Step 1. Collect CO2
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profi..err Save the world
“Is climate engineering real? What does a former US Air Force 2 star major general have to say about this most critical issue?”
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-an-interview-with-a-us-air-force-general/
Do you have any idea how many tera watts worth of energy even a small hurricane pumps out every second?
About the same effect as 0.013% man made co2 has on climate ?
So… This guy is a FORMER US Air Force 2 star Major General.
Pity. If he was actually a modern Major General I might be interested in what he has to say, or failing that, at least listen to him sing.
.
.
.
I’ll get my coat.
There are no “climate woes”, it is just the climate. Does what it does, as it always has.
What about this proposal funded by Bill Gates for by a BC based company called Carbon Engineering?
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/carbon-dioxide-fuel-squamish-june-2018
http://carbonengineering.com/
Sequestering CO2 out of the atmosphere, and using electricity to break the chemical bonds of CO2 back into long chain carbon compounds that can be made into anything, including low carbon liquid high density fuels. Probably really expensive as a prototype… if we scaled it up and had a source of reliable and perpetual reasonably priced electricity, and fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive in the longer term future, would this technology satisfy our requirement for carbon based products for the next 10,000 years, long after we run out of affordable fossil fuels? We are going to need long chain carbon molecules for thousands of products for as long as humanity is alive.
Nature already provides us with all the carbon that we could ever need. It’s called photosynthesis.
but..but…we are also supposed to be against biofuels. Talking about when we run out of affordable fossil fuels in the next hundreds of years and we still need long chain carbon molecules forever as long as humans are alive. Perhaps bio-carbon is better than CO2 for the feedstock, but will still take energy to process either. Which is better? Good question, but we have lots of either in any case. Just need a reliable source of electricity forever and we can have high density liquid carbon fuels forever too.
The height of stupidity.
They arbitrarily decide that something is broke and then propose to fix it.
Except they have no idea what will be the consequences of their intended fix to the problem that they do not understand,
This would be like someone who owns a Bugatti Veyron getting a bee in their bonnet that there is something wrong with the engine and then going in and making adjustment without understanding a thing about how the engine was designed.
They need to understand that there is a difference between the forecasts from a broken computer model()or 60 broken models) and reality.
It seems that Climate “Science” solutions (to problems that may or not exist) have not progressed beyond the medieval practice of bleeding, except that now they are trying to bleed the economy.
Beaver could “fix” it better n cheaper. What the world really needs is a beaver hybrid capable of toppling windmills. We could then add a new verse to the “high hopes” song 😉 🙂
Taking measures to prevent/reverse global warming/climate change is one thing. I only have one query. When do we know that it worked? Take extreme events for example. What is the acceptable frequency and strength of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heat wave, etc? Think about that for a moment or at least ask that when someone suggests a particular extreme event is caused by climate change. I would like to think that they are not suggesting that reducing CO2 levels will stop extreme events. At least I have not heard someone suggest that. Yet…
Poor Helene. I guess nobody has told yet that it’s a complete farce. No one is going to meet any of the Paris goals, whatever they do. She should relax, kick back, and maybe crack open a cold one.
THE GLOBAL WARMING MADNESS ROLLS ON
https://www.thegwpf.com/green-madness-eu-climate-targets-threaten-100-000-volkswagen-jobs/
********************************************************************************************
A Warning from Volkswagen boss Herber Diess
Within the next ten years, according to him, about 100,000 jobs would have to be eliminated at VW alone, should EU environment ministers not abandon their plan to lower CO2 emission limits for cars by 35 percent. VW currently employs about 400,000 people in the EU. According to Diess a quarter of these jobs could be affected.
VW have already announced they are stopping production of volume vehicles that use IC engines in favour of EV’s. I can’t recall when that announcement was made however, it was relatively recent. I am sure VW are well in to their plan to have a low over all emissions figure, or they will just fake it like they do!
GEO engineering other than cloud seeding is MADNESS. To think that we can control nature is tantamount to staring into a hurricane and yelling STOP. The world has gone stark raving mad.
@Alan. What could possibly go wrong? /Sarc
The major issues people around the globe that are being faced relates natural variability in precipitation of climate change but not global warming component of climate change. UN and nations are giving importance to global warming component which is insgnificant compared to seasonal and annual variations in temperature. Unfortunately, these groups are attributing the components of natural variations in precipitation to global warming. All this manipulation is to get a share in green fund running in to $500 billion for five years.
As a local environmental activist, I observed/noticed the fact that government agencies attend a complaint by the public or environmental groups if there is a financil benefit to them. Same is happening with all activities of UN/IPCC. “You scratch my back and I scratch your back” theory.
Recently a bank gave nobel prize — not by Nobel Committee –in economic for such fraudulent acts.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Step 1: Develop Magic Wand
Step 2: Use Magic Wand
I would strongly recommend sticking to the ‘plant a lot of trees’ idea and if there is a concern regarding displacing food production then plant trees that produce food. Fruit, nuts, even sap in some cases!
“Adding particles to the air would require regular refills”… and create a major medical problem worldwide from pollution-related diseases.
I like the way the graphic lists ‘Greening of deserts’ as a possible solution.
Do they know what causes the ‘Greening of deserts’ in the real world?
It seems that according to Geoengineering Logic, the way to reduce the CO2 levels is to increase the CO2 levels.
The problem with this sort of analysis, for the green tendency, is that every time you prove that a given measure is not enough, or not going to work, and so something still more draconian in the way of emission reductions is absolutely necessary, and faster…..?
Well, it gets to seem to the uncommitted observer more and more likely that none of it is going to happen, and so the only realistic alternative is adaptation to whatever comes down.
Here we have the claim that there is no solution via geo engineering or carbon capture. Fine, that is in no way surprising. But given the alarmist forecasts, what that implies is that if we don’t do totally implausible levels of reduction in totally implausible time scales, they think we will have a catastrophe.
Yes, if they are right, we will. So they will increasingly be forced to argue we need to divert our energies into preparing to deal with it, and stop the futile effort to prevent it.
Obviously many of these proposals rely on the myth that CO2 is causing warming. However, I think that bio-char is worth pursuing as a soil improvement and harvesting forests to produce it will have the benefit of reducing fires. If we can con people into thinking it helps the temperature then good.
“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades.”
— He’s not talking about windmills and solar power is he? The range estimate of $10 to $1,000 to remover carbon sounds a lot less than $27,000 per ton.
I have another idea. Let’s just ride it out and see what happens, since we’re obviously going to be doing that anyway.
Here are quotes from the past on fertilizing the Gulf of Alask with iron dust to increase CO2 absorption and salmon production:
If there is a concern about stifling algal blooms, then just disperse the iron dust less densely–perhaps by “dusting” it over a wide area from an airplane.
OK, so try it out first in a location where there aren’t any blooms or much of a food chain, AFAIK, like the Gulf of Alaska. Then monitor the site intensely for untoward consequences.
But it should be borne in mind that this fertilization is something that could easily be stopped or reduced if problems emerged–and that nature would soon rebound from them. Especially in areas that are now dead zones for aquatic life, like the portion of the Gulf of Alaska that was seeded in the experiment described above.
RK: 25% is better than 0%. And more of “other sea life” = less stress on fisheries.
RK: That’s not what happened in the Gulf of Alaska, which is already a “desert”, marine-life-wise. Instead, the salmon population exploded.
More seafood. Yum.
And of course none of the authors have made the switch to a subsistence lifestyle, even though they claim it’s possible.
I do not see any mention of the fact that we have removed about 60 million tons of sulphur dioxide annualy from the skies since 1980 which equals the warming effect of removing 4 large volcanoes emissions.
This of course opens the skies to more solar energy to be stored in the oceans and released during warm cycles.
China has reduced sulphur emissions by 75% in recent years equivalent to one large volcano. (23 million tonnes). Pinatubo was 15 million tonnes.
Co2 has been a minor influence and measured at 1 watt per sq meter every 50 yrs.
We need more science on how many watts sulphur removal has contributed to warming because going forward there are plans to remove a lot more sulphur from shipping fuels.
So far this warming appears to be beneficial for the planets food production.
A recent study found that agriculture declined during the Pinatubo eruption years, so cooling the world now might have negative consequenses with so many more mouths to feed since 1980.
If the warming ever got dangerous it could be reversed by not removing sulphur from fuels, at the price of acid rain returning.
The PDO and AMO ocean cycles will rule in the end as the most powerful influence.
The recent LaNina has been weak, possibly from more sunshine owing to reduced pollution? Only time will tell.
The truth is the exact opposite – geoengineering is being used to cause weather disasters blamed on ‘global warming’. But everyone pretends the Emperor ain’t naked.
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=105914
excerpts:
Weather Warfare & the UN Agendas
“The globalists who manufactured this oncoming calamity have a specific agenda that has multiple goals. Most of those relate to the UN agendas—Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Vision 2050. One major purpose is to move the affected populace away from the land and/or coastlines. Many of these regions have been identified as safe environmental corridors that are meant to be used exclusively by the power elite. […] The spate of unprecedented mega-hurricanes that have been geoengineered over the past few decades are also the deceitful product of the Global Warming crowd. There’s no better advertisement for the Global Warming [fraud] than to destroy a few cities, states or coastlines every year which are then blamed on out-of-control climate change…
In fact, the UN just produced a fictitious and hysterical report that makes a case for biospheric Armageddon if humanity does not turn down the heat (via carbon footprint reduction) post-haste. Of course, all the models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on CO2 generation produced by human activity, which completely ignores the influences of natural sun cycles.”
Given that we’re not that far from the minimum CO2 level required to sustain plant life, aren’ “plant trees”/“green the desert” and “sequester CO2” contradictory?