Chemtrail Central
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive

Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Geoengineering in the News

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > CT Science

Author Thread
Sore Throat

Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1923
Location: x
Global Warming Slowdown Hinders Climate Treaty Effort PostMon Sep 23, 2013 3:39 pm  Reply with quote  

Imagine more than a decade long, clandestine, geoengineering project actually contributing to reducing the rate of global heating. Since such a project is highly classified, the impacts are not made known to the general public and their elected representatives. As a result, the urgency of addressing the ultimate source of global warming is diminished. King coal and oil companies continue to promote and profit from their life threatening products. The true question is whether this is yet another unintended consequence or program going exactly as planned?

Global Warming Slowdown Hinders Climate Treaty Effort

By Alex Morales

More than ever, scientists say they’re convinced the Earth’s climate is warming. Yet lawmakers are struggling to do anything about it because the pace of change has unexpectedly slowed.

The data has caused a United Nations panel to lower predictions of the pace of global temperature increases by 2100, according to draft documents obtained by Bloomberg ahead of publication due on Sept. 27. Still, the most complete assessment of climate science in six years also is likely to conclude that melting ice will make sea levels rise faster than previously projected.

The findings muddy the picture about how much carbon dioxide output is affecting the climate, giving ammunition to those who doubt the issue needs urgent action. Skeptics have succeeded in “confusing the public,” said Michael Jacobs, who advised the U.K. government on climate policy until 2010.

“It’s been a very organized campaign by climate skeptics, using the very, very tiny number of scientists who don’t agree with the almost unanimous view of everybody else and inflating small uncertainties into apparently major challenges to the scientific consensus,” Jacobs said. “One of the challenges of the panel this year is to convince the media, politicians and the public that there is this extraordinarily widespread consensus on the major facts about climate change.”

Paris Talks

Jacobs is now an adviser to the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations in Paris, which is advising the French government as it prepares for climate treaty talks in Paris in 2015.

The report identifies volcanic eruptions, a periodic decline in the sun’s warmth and natural variation in the weather as possible contributors to the lull in the overall pace of climate change, though computer models aren’t able to simulate the temperatures that have been observed.

“We don’t really know yet what the explanation is for the slowdown,” said Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. “The most favored explanation at the moment is that more of the heat absorbed by the oceans is being sucked down into deeper waters than before.”

Spanning thousands of pages, the report was written by 830 scientists. A summary is due Sept. 27 in Stockholm from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization set up by the UN to compile research into something policymakers can assess. Further installments are due in March and April, with a final summary in October 2014.

Earth Threat

“This knowledge is based on millions of measurements in the atmosphere, in the ocean, on land and ice,” Thomas Stocker, a professor at Switzerland’s University of Bern who led work on the first part of the report told reporters in Stockholm today. “Because this change threatens our primary resources, land and water, in short, because it threatens our only home, we must face this challenge.”

The research will guide envoys from more than 190 nations seeking to write a treaty in 2015 that would take effect in 2020, adding to greenhouse gas limits set out in the Kyoto Protocol.

Drafts of the report indicate the IPCC will find it’s “extremely likely” that humans caused more than half of the global temperature increase since the 1950s. That’s more certain than the 2007 report, which put the probability at “very likely.” The language assigns numerical probabilities of at least 95 percent for “extremely likely” and greater than 90 percent for “very likely.”

Report Findings

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the panel declined to comment, because the report is unfinished. The draft document also:

* Refers to a slowdown in the rate of warming since 1998. Global average temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3 degree to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, according to a draft issued on Aug. 12. That’s less than the 1.1-to 6.4-degree gain forecast in 2007. The world already has warmed about 0.89 degree since the industrial revolution.

* Says sea levels may increase 26 centimeters to 81 centimeters (10 to 32 inches) by the end of the century, more than the 2007 range for gains of 18 to 59 centimeters. The level already has risen about 19 centimeters.

* Signals that the sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be lower, leading to a temperature increase of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. That’s a half degree lower at the bottom end of the range than in 2007.

Credibility Gap

When the panel finished its last work six years ago, it was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize and the prospect its findings might spur a globally binding treaty to cut greenhouse gases. That deal never materialized, and the scientists took a battering over inaccuracies in their work and the content of leaked e-mails between climate researchers.

“The credibility and the reputation of the IPCC definitely suffered,” Professor Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University’s Environmental Economics Program said by phone from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The latest report isn’t likely to heavily influence policy in China and the U.S., which account for more than 40 percent of global emissions from burning fossil fuels. In the U.S., lawmakers tend to use science from the report either as a “lightbulb” to illuminate discussions or a “rock” -- ammunition to defend a position, Stavins said.

Business Moves

“In the highly polarized political environment we have in the U.S. Congress, lamentably it’s the case that science is used as a rock and not a light bulb,” Stavins said. “It does not change people’s minds.”

For China, “its own national assessment and the level of mounting public concern about air pollution are more influential,” said Barbara Finamore, Asia director at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

Big businesses from oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. to food producer Nestle SA are starting to anticipate limits on carbon emissions, preparing for the day when policymakers act.

That IPCC’s 2007 study “provided a powerful driver for increased business and policy attention to this issue,” said Nick Robins, head of the Climate Change Center at HSBC Holdings Plc in London.

HSBC charted 157 new climate policies worldwide implemented in 2008 and 2009. The non-governmental Carbon Disclosure Project this month said 84 percent of 500 of the world’s largest companies have emissions targets. That compares with 42 percent of respondents in its 2006 survey.

“The more we understand these risks, the more pressure there is for a political response,” said Richard Gledhill, head of climate change at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. “Businesses are facing not just physical risks but also potentially regulatory risks.”

Leak Impact

Leaks from the report have provided fodder for blogs and newspapers questioning whether the planet is warming at all.

The Australian newspaper on Sept. 16 published an article headlined “We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC,” a day after the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph had a story announcing “Top Climate Scientists Admit Global Warming Forecasts Were Wrong.”

In a Sept. 8 article whose headline included the words “now it’s global COOLING!,” the Daily Mail said the IPCC was forced to call a “crisis meeting.” The IPCC issued a press release denying the claim.


The stories are part of a trend toward skepticism about climate change that gained ground since the IPCC’s 2007 report. Skeptics including Marc Morano, former spokesman for Republican Senator James Inhofe, pounced on errors by the IPCC in 2007 that exaggerated the rate glaciers in the Himalayas are melting and overstated flood risks in the Netherlands.

A subsequent probe by the Amsterdam-based InterAcademy Council recommended management and structure changes. The IPCC since has largely followed those suggestions, although Chairman Rajendra Pachauri kept his post. Three “climategate” probes into leaked e-mails at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia largely exonerated scientists.

This year’s report “is less about mind-blowing new discoveries and more about getting more certainty and detail,” said Kaisa Kosonen senior political adviser on climate to the environmental group Greenpeace International.

“This is not just another piece of paper,” Jacobs said. “It will be read by politicians. They will absolutely absorb what it says. It will be without question the most significant document that has come out in this field since 2007.”
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sore Throat

Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1923
Location: x
Terraforming Earth: Geoengineering megaplan starts now PostFri Oct 11, 2013 4:11 pm  Reply with quote

Terraforming Earth: Geoengineering megaplan starts now

by Michael Marshall

THIS is how we will hold off disaster. To help us avoid dangerous climate change, we will need to create the largest industry in history: to suck greenhouse gases out of the air on a giant scale. For the first time, we can sketch out this future industry – known as geoengineering – and identify where it would operate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now considers geoengineering to be respectable. The reason is simple. Unless our greenhouse gas emissions start falling soon, Earth will probably warm this century by more than 2 °C, at which point things get nasty – because human society might not be able to adapt. But emissions are still rising. The upshot is we urgently need ways to suck CO2 out of the air. This was the subject of the Oxford Conference on Negative Emission Technologies, held last month in the UK.

In conjunction with scientists attending that meeting, we've assessed the effectiveness – and cost – of the most likely methods. They include planting trees, shovelling crushed rock into the ocean, and building millions of chemical "sponges" to pull gas out of the air (see diagram to find out about each technique).

Alone, such CO2-suckers can only handle a fraction of emissions. So we will need several. "If we don't employ some of these technologies, we will go above 2 °C," says Richard Lampitt of the UK National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. "A programme of multiple negative emissions technologies could perhaps store a few billion tonnes of carbon per year by mid-century, and conceivably as much as 5 or 10 billion tonnes," says John Shepherd, also at the UK National Oceanography Centre.

So by 2100, CO2-suckers might just mop up the equivalent of what our annual emissions are now. But there are big costs, even putting money to one side. The biological approaches will cover vast areas of land, pressurising farms and wildlife, while the high-tech approaches will burn lots of energy.

There are other problems. It is hard to verify if plants and oceans are trapping CO2. We need underground space to store the gas. And many techniques could harm ecosystems. Worse, pulling CO2 from the air makes it progressively harder to suck out more, so the methods get less efficient over time (Carbon Management, And models show that removing CO2 from the air affects land plants, too. "They grow more slowly and take up less carbon," says Andreas Oschlies of the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany.

That means we have to start soon: with immediate research to assess safety, and roll-out within 20 years. Some methods, like tree-planting, can begin now; others may be decades away (Process Safety and Environmental Protection, On top of all this, CO2-suckers are pointless unless paired with dramatic emissions cuts. If not, even a major programme of ocean liming beginning in 2020 would have little effect.

It ain't cheap. As a rough estimate, it will cost several trillion dollars a year – a few per cent of global GDP. And it only makes economic sense with serious incentives, such as a high carbon price. But with a combination of CO2 reduction and geoengineering, we might just miss the worst of climate change. The bottom line is that CO2-suckers are essential, but we also need to ditch fossil fuels quickly. It's that or climate havoc.

This article appeared in print under the headline "Transforming Earth"
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

All times are GMT.
The time now is Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:19 am

  Display posts from previous:      

© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base