Science is ready to save us, maybe

Guest Post by Ivor Williams

Many scientists around the world have realised that the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not likely to cut back and cripple their economies any time soon. Even China has admitted their peak emissions will not be reached until 2030, and have promised only ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2060. Those two very carefully chosen words have been interpreted by the media to mean ‘zero carbon’, but nobody seems to have noticed that if a country is chucking out 20 Gigatons of CO2 and also removing 20 Gt — thereby achieving carbon neutrality — the total CO2 content of the atmosphere does not change. Luckily (or maybe not, see later) science has a Plan B: they will control the weather.

It has been tried before. In the mid-1800s huge bonfires were lit in parts of the USA to make it rain harder. A century later dry ice pellets were tossed into clouds from aeroplanes for the same reason. The latest theories — this time to modify the climate — are called geoengineering, are more serious, more comprehensive, and far more worrying. Other labels (possibly seen as less frightening) are ‘climate intervention’ or ‘climate repair’.

There are numerous projects to manage solar radiation by deflecting some sunlight using mirrors orbiting the earth, by injecting aerosols into the high atmosphere, or by spraying clouds to make them brighter and more reflective. Alternative theories: prevent emissions by capturing the carbon in smoky chimneys, compressing it then keeping it safe somewhere for a century or two. Or remove the carbon dioxide by planting a trillion trees. These methods could be both cheaper and safer than messing about with the atmosphere, but would take a very long time.

Solar radiation management is at the moment one of the only ways that would achieve Prince Charles’ call for ‘swift and immediate action’. However, experiments with orbiting mirrors or chemicals scattered across the high atmosphere may not be quite as easy to control as heating a test tube in the lab. Tinkering with the earth’s delicate weather systems on such a massive scale could either be the miracle solution to our climate problem, or be a catastrophe the like of which this poor old world has not seen since the dinosaurs were wiped out by a flying comet.

David Shukman, the BBC’s Science Editor, is well aware of this: ‘Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people,’ he commented, ‘but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.’ In November 2017 Nature magazine website carried a feature headed: ‘We can and must govern climate engineering.’ Their contributor, Stephen Anderson, warned that ‘scientists do not yet know what the adverse consequences of climate engineering could be.’ More recent comments from a Harvard scientist: ‘solar geoengineering (is) an awful action that might nevertheless be needed.’

 No-one seemed to worry too much about consequences in 1958; the then Director of the US Weather Bureau wrote about dropping 10 ‘clean’ megaton bombs over the Arctic, or at least consider blackening the icecap to reduce its albedo. There have been other attempts to affect the climate. In 1982 the United Nations was given similar advice: to turn deserts and snowfields black, this time to ward off what they thought was the imminent ice age. Or the ‘inventor’ (that’s what the newspapers called him) who set out with four workmen in 2010 to paint the peaks of the Andes white to combat global warming. This was a serious project funded by the World Bank. Are they still at it, I wonder?

But at that United Nations conference in 1982 the expert’s advice was not only about dropping soot on the icecaps, but also to raise vast quantities of water vapour from the oceans with H-bombs. (What is it about meteorology and big bangs?) This was another casually mentioned but potentially disastrous solution to the supposed ice age threat.

So the world turns, and we are today gripped by messages of doom about the end of civilisation unless we can avoid, mitigate or somehow prevent our precious earth heating up while we lobsters do nothing. The UK’s aim for zero carbon by 2050, by the way, is of no use; to reduce our measly 1% contribution to the emission total — even by the full amount — would have little or no effect, as it would be far outweighed by the increase elsewhere. The ‘do nothing’ phase may continue for some time, which favours the expensive, dangerous but temptingly fast-acting solar radiation projects.

As climate agitation takes firmer hold, some country’s leader, anxious about waning support (as they all are eventually), will say to his scientists: go ahead, save the world. When that happens, remember that ‘while it could prove disastrous for billions of people … it might be required for the good of the planet.’ So that’s all right then. Science is coming to our rescue. Prince Charles might get what he wished for.

Credentials: 7 years in the Met Office, Fellow of the R Met Soc since 1983, long-time freelance on meteorology and climate change, careful research for article above. Scanned copies could be sent as evidence for all points mentioned.

114 thoughts on “Science is ready to save us, maybe

      • Nancy has a plan to fix the climate. It involves chocolate. Lot’s of chocolate !!

        “Climate repair” , FFS ? The only thing which is likely to result from incompetent sorcerer’s apprentices fiddling with something they can not even understand , let alone control, is the probably triggering of the next glaciation.

        HANDS OFF MY CLIMATE !!

        Damned fools.

        • Nancy has a plan to fix the climate. It involves chocolate. Lot’s of chocolate !!
          Hey, that could work. Especially if it’s white chocolate. It could reflect sunlight, thereby triggering the next ice age.

      • Poor Nancy suffers from delusions of grandeur. One could make the case that her proposed policy of changing the 25 Amendment, but not for the current President, implies that after the first of the year Congress will remove Biden for his deteriorating metal capacity and, followed several months later, might also removing Kamala for basic incompetence. Ah, wouldn’t President Pelosi be a great addition to the current political scene :<)

    • I don’t see the insanity in this scenario.

      The government pours public money into hair-brained geoengineering schemes and the geoengineering companies spend the money on their ideas. The owners of the companies get rich off their schemes and donate large sums of taxpayer money back to the poltical parties that favor them. The political parties use that money to stay in power and the cycle repeats.

      Doesn’t sound so insane to me, sounds pretty rational actually.

      • It can be said that those who elect such people to govern them are the ones who are insane. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

  1. “Tinkering with the earth’s delicate weather systems on such a massive scale could either be the miracle solution to our climate problem, or be a catastrophe the like of which this poor old world has not seen since the dinosaurs were wiped out by a flying comet.”

    Anyone concerned about”tinkering with the earth’s delicate wather systems”, must worried sick by the beating of it with a baseball bat.

    • And yet, nothing unusual is happening with climate. So hitting a planet with a baseball bat, is pretty ineffective. You’d have to hit it with something closer to its own size.

      • None of the AGW shills here can answer this simple question….

        In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years, that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

        All that has happened is a small amount of highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

        And the whole planet should be very thankful it didn’t go the other way. !!

        • ‘The planet is dying due to human activity’ say the warmists.
          Then they say ‘ you can’t geoengineer it as puny humans can’t affect the mighty planet’ mmmmmm.
          Solar powered cloud ships in the Pacific. Cheap, simple and totally reversible. If even needed…

      • Jeff: “You’d have to hit it with something closer to its own size”

        This is precisely how I know ‘scientists’ who went into doom climate are sciencey-like folk who couldn’t handle STEM (unlike the 3% who make up the core of dissent). They have no sense of orders of magnitude. Skeptical Science site some years ago was clanging that warming is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs each second. Of course they used the formula that gave us 300% more warming than observations revealed, so it’s closer to one Hiroshima bomb per second. They seem unaware that the sun’s benign insolation on the earth’s surface is 2, 755 Hiroshima bombs a second!

        The Chicxulub asteroid hit in Mexico that wiped out the dinosaurs was over a billion Hiroshima bombs https://www.livescience.com/26933-chicxulub-cosmic-impact-dinosaurs.html

        all in one place. Now that was a baseball bat! Nevertheless, despite the end of dinosaurs, no “tipping point” was reached. The atmosphere cleared itself, the aerosol cooled climate, re-warmed and life reclaimed the earth. The little puff of CO2 that feeds a ridiculous hysteria today by sciencey-like folk certainly isn’t in this class. Indeed, the huge surprise to the sciencey types of the Garden of Eden Earth that is gracing us courtesy of the addition of a 120ppm CO² is something to rejoice about.

        • “They have no sense of orders of magnitude.”
          That all disappeared with the advent of the hand held electronic calculator. Before that, you couldn’t get through freshman engineering without your K&E Log Log Decitrig Duplex slide rule. You couldn’t get correct answers without doing the powers-of-ten part of the calculations in your head.

          • Yes Joe, that was my computer when I graduated in engineering. I like the electronic upgrade, of course, but doing a quick back of envelope at lunch still captivates some of my younger colleagues.

          • I still have my K & E log log duplex decitrig. And the TI SR-10 that I bought second hand from my faculty advisor. During my short time in graduate school, I got the SR-56 programmable, and a whole bunch of their application modules. Neat stuff.

        • I had a Post in engineering school – you could lean on it. I still have it. The value of using a slide rule was that you had to determine the order of magnitude of the answer

    • Except WE AREN’T..

      We are returning accidentally buried carbon back into the carbon cycle, where it belongs.

      You know…. that cycle that provides for every living creature on the planet.

      Yes.. even you, loy, are totally dependent on that carbon cycle.

      And as you have proven, there is NO EVIDENCE it is doing anything except enhance the biosphere. !

    • The first, most fundamental mistake the author makes is his belief Earth’s weather systems are “delicate.”
      From that flaw everything else is pseudoscience and superstition on his part.

    • Hey anything is going to do more than emission control as a plan … literally anything will do more than it.

    • Loydo, we are beating it with a baseball bat, by way of renewables, for a non existent problem, so, all for nothing.

      How arrogant to think we can or even need to control climate, and we’re actively destroying it in the process. Do we learn nothing by our mistakes?

    • Returning the atmosphere to CO2 levels closer to what it enjoyed over 99.99% of the earth’s history is “beating it with a baseball bat”?

  2. “Or remove the carbon dioxide by planting a trillion trees. ”

    Right now millions of trees are cut to be burned in European power stations: Eco logic in action.

  3. Very sci-fi: terraforming on terra. Energy budget alone for such a project will dwarf the total human expenditure of thermal energy for the past 5k years, and the only proven source for that energy available is hydrocarbon combustion. Well done. I’m sure that the political system required for such a project will be generous, understanding, and compassionate. Might even show results, although not necessarily good ones, before the end of the millenium. Let’s have the Eloi in for supper, shall we?

    • Trees plant themselves far more effectively than we ever could. !

      See how much the biosphere has expanded in response to the rise in atmospheric CO2.

      I doubt we could have done that by planting trees.

      • In Elberta, Alabama – not far from Mobile, or Pensacola – these people took a clear-cut spot of land, and let it go wild. They made a nature preserve out of it. “Biophilia.” Trees have prospered and a wetlands has formed. Carnivorous plants appeared, among other interesting life forms.

        They run this as a nature preserve. You can visit – a great place.

        If you look at this place on Google Maps, with the “satellite” view, you can see the amazing contrast between their little rectangle of land, and the neighboring cleared areas. Theirs started out as one of these cleared plots for sale. It did not take long for Mother Nature to change this plot of land back to wild.

        12695 C.R. 95, Elberta, Alabama 36530

        • Secondary succession in my neck of the woods is easy to pick out. You have to wait a long time for the climax forest to appear. Do you know when it was started? I didn’t see that on their web page:
          http://www.biophilia.net/
          Looks like their gift shop is doing OK (-:

      • The oak/hickory/maple/tuliptree/basswood forest in my Appalachian Mnt area resprout from cut stumps — no need to replant anything. Conifers don’t resprout, but do reseed readily if “mother” trees are left.

  4. ‘Many scientists around the world have realised that the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not likely to cut back and cripple their economies any time soon. ‘

    Untrue. Look at the world’s 10 largest economies: all the European ones have seriously cut back on Co2 and there is NO discernable impact on their economies as a result of that. None.

    • “all the European ones have seriously cut back on Co2 and there is NO discernable impact on their economies as a result of that. None.”

      Tell it to Xi. Just in case it may not have occurred to him.

    • Rubbish UK and EU are just outsource their emissions out to Russia and China which is why CO2 just hit 415ppm. Even your beloved Guardian has reported that fact that the UK is the biggest outsourcer of emissions and you have achieved absolutely nothing
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/21/britain-is-g7s-biggest-net-importer-of-co2-emissions-per-capita-says-ons

      Like all leftards you forget to look at the result … you guilted yourself and go to sleep thinking you are saving the world when you are doing nothing.

      • “LdB October 20, 2020 at 1:03 am

        Rubbish UK and EU are just outsource their emissions out to Russia and China…”

        BINGO! It’s what the world best exporters do best. Griff does not get that yet.

    • Also,no discernible result on
      a) the level of CO2 and
      b) the global temperature.
      Loadsa munny spent on ( not so) hot air!
      But seriously higher energy prices .And you pontificate that there is no discernible impact on their economies?

    • Griff,
      your claim that major Euro economies have cut emissions is False.
      Germany’s CO2 reductions under the massively expensive Energie Winde have been small for the past decade because it shutdown nuclear, while the US’s has been substantial by the conversion from coal to natural gas generation still underway. Paris Agreement had nothing to do with either. Germany’s nuclear shutdown was irrational fear after Fukashima in 2011. The US it’s because of fracking unleashing a shale gas revolution.
      Further your claim this has not damaged Germany’s economy is wildly false. Demonstrably false.

      • The nuclear shutdown was signed quietly months before Fukoshima by both parties. That is documented. Of course the press reported a tidal wave was sure to hit Germany. Shades of a Carl Schmitt crisis-management tactic there, again.

    • A simple set of rules for you grief..

      1. Engage brain
      2. Research topic under discussion
      3. Post comment

      This should ensure we never hear another word from you.

    • Griff, one of the basic rules in economics is any increase in the cost of energy reduces the rate of economic growth. Renewable energy has increased the cost of energy; therefore renewable energy has caused economic damage to any country which has embraced it. It is very noticeable that European countries have had very weak economic growth for the last decade. This is also the period when European countries have been most enthusiastic in embracing renewable energy.

        • Is that a serious question John Adams? Are you new to the site? Where have you been?

          Just for starters, all forms of fossil fuel energy is taxed. Not only is renewable energy not taxed, it is heavily subsidised. They throw money at renewables. There are too many other issues to cover in a short post so either follow the site or ask particular questions. A broad question is difficult to answer.

          A factor that is not discussed much in regard to the cost of renewables is their disposal. Unresolved, so expensive that few people do so responsibly. It is already becoming a huge issue! None it it was thought through. Do some of your own research, there’s plenty out there.

    • First off, the EU as a whole probably qualifies as one of the top 10 economies. Individual countries within the EU, no.
      Most of the CO2 reductions have come from shipping manufacturing elsewhere.

    • Yeah griff. Unlike the US, Europe’s economy hasn’t changed at all! If it doesn’t start changing, they’ll be overtaken by Bangladesh whose GDP growth is double digit, borne along by new clean coal fired electrical plants. Even Pakistan is growing at 6+% and Aftica south if the Sahara at 3%.

    • Correction: You meant western industrialized nations reduced emissions with no change to the climate.

      Also, USA is doing better on emissions than any nation that signed the Paris agreement.

    • Hey Griff, why don’t you lead the way and cut back on your CO2 emissions?
      In the meantime you should donate all that Chinese cash you get for spamming WUWT to Anthony in lieu of the oil money.

    • If you allow the timber substitution of coal as carbon neutral which it most certainly is not so sorry not the cases a con.

  5. There’s no discernible effect even after the Thunbergian experiment in the relentless rise of atmospheric CO2 either. So we‘ve got something wrong, have we? Human caused CO2 emissions are insignificant at whatever level of economic agony. Oh, let’s forbid sub-Saharan Africa to build coal fired power stations in order to please Griff. They won’t mind – they can burn local biomass as long as it lasts.

  6. “Tinkering with the earth’s delicate weather systems on such a massive scale could either be the miracle solution to our climate problem, or be a catastrophe the like of which this poor old world has not seen since the dinosaurs were wiped out by a flying comet.”

    But geoengineering needn’t be blindly leapt into. Pilot projects could be employed first, and further expansion canceled if negative effects are observed.

  7. “Tinkering with the earth’s delicate weather systems” this kind of BS annoys the hell out of me.

    Here were are, as sceptics saying the climate system is stable, doesnt have tipping points, and is dominated by negative feedback systems, but then as soon as it suits the argument, the climate is ‘delicate’.

    Please stop this propaganda language, do not use it, it totally degrades the value of your argument!

    • The Earth’s weather is NOT an SJW petal !

      It doesn’t need a “safe space”

      Try taking it on when it gets cranky, see who the “delicate” one is then.

  8. Yet the one “geoengineering” technique which is likely to have tangible benefits, is cheap, and has already been demonstrated is the one that is most demonized. Selective iron fertilisation of the oceans boosts the bottom of the food chain, and results in an improved fisheries resource. Since this process also occurs naturally via saharan duststorms and volcanic eruptions, there is insignificant risk from small anthroprogenic additions. An experiment using annual fertilisation in one area of ocean would give better understanding of any long term effect.

  9. Ivor Williams, your statement “Tinkering with the earth’s delicate weather systems …” has prompted several comments already, and I will add another. It is reported that a couple thousand sledgehammers (thunderstorms) are pounding the atmosphere at any point in time, lit by about 1.4 billion lightning discharges per year to make sure we get the message. Delicate is an absurd word to use to describe weather systems. Just keep watching. The planet will be fine. Oh, and turn Prince Charles’ microphone off. Click. There, much better.

  10. On 18 October 2020, the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory was 411.17 ppm. That equates to a density of 1.143 x 10^+16 molecules of CO2 per cubic centimetre. The four main absorption bands for CO2 emit 6.929 x 10^+7 photons per cubic centimetre, that is, one photon for every 165,000,000 CO2 molecules from Planck’s law for a source temperature of 15̊C. Consequently all of the radiation from the four bands emitted from the Earth’s surface for an average temperature of 15̊C would have been absorbed within a few hundred metres of the surface, leaving the vast majority of the CO2 molecules in their vibrational ground state.

    Increasing or decreasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by a few hundred ppm would make no difference to this outcome other than decreasing or increasing the altitude at which complete absorption takes place. This supports earlier results from the analysis of data at a number of CO2 stations across the globe that satellite lower troposphere temperature was independent of the CO2 concentration. It also negates the current reason to stop the use of fossil fuel and shows that the CO2 climate sensitivity metric used in climate simulation computer models is invalid, which is one reason why the model predictions are always wrong.

    Furthermore the main absorption peak for CO2 is at a wavelength of 14.97 microns, the peak for radiation from a source at -79.5̊C. That would likely cause cooling of the atmosphere, not warming except for the fact that the amount of energy involved is infinitesimal when spread through the Earth’s troposphere.

    The UN IPCC, the Greens and the Socialist Left have caused unnecessary pain, anguish and expense with their unjustified claim that increasing CO2 concentration has been the cause of the increase in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature over the past century as the Earth recovered from the Little Ice Age. There is certainly no justification for geo-engineering of our atmosphere.

    • Bevan, the idea about increased warming with CO2 emissions concerns increasing absorption in the low-intensity wings, not at the absorption maximum.

      Will Happer tried to publish a paper showing that a correct evaluation of the spectroscopy revealed a 40% error in intensity in the wings, given the way the absorption wings were commonly treated.

      He couldn’t get it published, even though he presented the analytical solutions of the physical equations in his manuscript. Even Physics has become corrupt.

  11. This article is an examination of the useless and failed attempts made by man who can’t see past the end of his own nose:

    “In the mid-1800s huge bonfires were lit in parts of the USA to make it rain harder. A century later dry ice pellets were tossed into clouds from aeroplanes for the same reason. The latest theories — this time to modify the climate — are called geoengineering……..in 1958; the then Director of the US Weather Bureau wrote about dropping 10 ‘clean’ megaton bombs over the Arctic, or at least consider blackening the icecap to reduce its albedo. There have been other attempts to affect the climate. In 1982 the United Nations was given similar advice: to turn deserts and snowfields black, this time to ward off what they thought was the imminent ice age. Or the ‘inventor’ (that’s what the newspapers called him) who set out with four workmen in 2010 to paint the peaks of the Andes white to combat global warming. This was a serious project funded by the World Bank. Are they still at it, I wonder?”

    Is this the dripping sarcasm and ridiculousness of these “ideas” or the pointing out the futility by the author?

    I love the dropping of ice pellets from airplanes to make it rain harder.

    Look, the simple fact is: we don’t control the climate. All this talk about reducing CO2 will do nothing but destroy the plant life on this planet that need it for food. As for those thinking “Oh a trillion trees is good”, what are they going to eat? Oh but trees “sequester CO2 the most and will give us O2”–my foot. Most of the O2 we need to breathe comes from the OCEAN by way of photosynthesis. Not only is the argument pointless it misses the arbitrary point entirely: destroy CO2 and reduce O2 in the process. Last I checked, we need O2 at least every 3 minutes or so at a concentration of roughly 20% in the atmosphere. You starve the lifeforms that create it and guess we’ll all become free divers on land.

    What a joke.

    There is nothing wrong with reducing your entire footprint on this Earth and cleaning up that which you make bad. But it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2! It has to do with pollution and clean up. You want to save the oceans? STOP buying and using plastics that have NO MARKET FOR RECYCLING. Don’t know which ones those are? Look it up, we have invented this fantastic thing called the internet which we’ve stored vast amounts of information on and use it to argue with each other about the finer points of our own inventions (temperature gauge and politics).

    And while you are searching for which plastics have no market for recycling, why not refresh your memory on photosynthesis here I’ll give you the formula to start: Sunlight + CO2 = O2 + H2O. Unless you come up with a better solution than millions of years of evolution: STFU and start being NICE to your plants and giving them the food they need.

  12. Anyone who doubts that molten salt small modular reactors cannot easilly replace all of our power generators is simply out of touch.

  13. “..Many scientists around the world have realised that the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not likely to cut back and cripple their economies any time soon…”

    Well, here is a idea…
    To deal with the rising sea levels from climate change, they are working on a floating off-grid office in Europe….

    https://tinyurl.com/y67xe9hj
    “..This off-grid office under construction in Europe is designed to float in case sea levels rise…”

    In case of sea level rise? In case of it? I though the seas already were rising. Silly me.

    • Sea level is rising at about 8″ per CENTURY with little or no acceleration. Only rubes that have been duped by the barrage of dishonest climate hype by nuts like James Hansen and Michael Mann would buy an office that floats.

  14. “We can and must govern climate engineering”. Don’t you first have to learn enough about it to know what the fundamental relationships are? This person is clueless but wants to monkey with a critical system. I propose that we spend about 100 years more research, then decide if something needs to be done, if we know how to do it without causing more damage than benefit, and if we can afford to do so. Using the left’s own interpretation of their precautionary principle, is the risk of ruining the climate worth doing anything serious to affect it? No.

  15. I just noticed that the ENSOmeter has dropped sharply. Has the proposed geoengineering work already started?

  16. Before fixing CO2, it should first be determined as to whether CO2 is harmful to the atmosphere or humans.

    This has not been done. All these solutions are premature. First, establish there is a problem that needs solving before looking for fixes.

    Cart before the Horse.

  17. It remains a dilemma how to deal with trolls like Lloydo and Griff, if you just ignore them some newby might think their comment is valid as no one challenges it. But commenting uses up valuable breath and head space, correcting them becomes the full time job which is likely their goal.

    Maybe when Lloydo makes a comment like above where he asks for someone’s credentials then refuses to provide his own in response then he should get a time out. A week or more with no income might hurt them.

    I think allowing known trolls to comment remains a net benefit as they invariably get handed their heads in public which is a good thing.

    But there needs to be some penalties for egregious behavior.
    Not allowed to ask someone’s credentials without providing your own in the same comment, off you go to moderation jail

  18. While many leftists seems to have learned economics and politics from repeat watching of Wall-e, they also seem to gain their understanding of climate from movies, like the Day after Tomorrow, a thigh slapper every time i see it. (I especially love that they use an Al gore lookalike as President who then does not survive, classic!!!).
    My point is that all the geo-engineering movies i have seen, the science they use to “fix” human climate change always destroys the climate, ice age being the result.
    So lets force them to watch their own idiotic propaganda?
    New ice age destroys more than just humanity, if fact with our adaptability its likely we survive at the expense of other species (polar bear robes are really warm?)

    • How about we spend…
      ONE MILLION DOLLARS…
      on an easily-escapable, overly-elaborate scheme to seed the ocean with iron. Then readjust the temperature record back to flat, and declare victory in the war on carbon. We skeptics will all admit we were wrong and thanks for saving the planet Mickey! It’s so awesome that we get to keep our fossil fuels!

      My one simple request is that the project should include sharks with frickin’ laser beams shooting out of their heads. Ok? We need to follow The Science.

  19. HWGA – tackling tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s solutions.

    No one, and I mean NO ONE gets it.

    So-called “science” can’t even get the most basic atom (hydrogen) ‘right’ and they want to prescribe solution well into the future?

    “Science is [truly] the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”

  20. Expensive Ineffective and Dangerous “Solutions” to non-existent problems. Even if I believed the Climate Emergency BS none of the current solutions would make dent, even by the IPCC’S own calculations. They don’t even want to try iron fertilization though that would have the beneficial effect of increasing the life in the oceans in a controlled and very inexpensive way. Seems like the only approved ways are to choke industries, push people into poverty and mine for subsidies.

  21. Entirely agree PC, Fe fertilization can be stopped any moment moved to different location to feed different people and is extremely low cost.
    But given that a capitalists’ would deliver the solution and that a solution is not really sought, not much enthusiasm.

  22. “Even China has admitted their peak emissions will not be reached until 2030, and have promised only ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2060. Those two very carefully chosen words have been interpreted by the media to mean ‘zero carbon’, but nobody seems to have noticed that if a country is chucking out 20 Gigatons of CO2 and also removing 20 Gt — thereby achieving carbon neutrality — the total CO2 content of the atmosphere does not change. ”

    Emitting 20 Gt and removing 20 Gt is equivalent to simply cutting emissions by 20 Gt, is it not? So you’re saying that the latter would not change the total CO2 content of the atmosphere. How can that be true?

Comments are closed.