|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
Rutgers ProfessorWarns Geoengineering Could “Create Disaster
 Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:31 am
|
 |
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rutgers-professor-warns-geoengineering-could-create-disasters-global-famine.html
Rutgers Professor Warns Geoengineering Could “Create Disasters,” Global Famine
National Academy of Sciences debates spraying aerosols into upper stratosphere to combat global warming
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Debate surrounding the possibility of geoengineering the earth’s climate by lining the atmosphere with aerosol particles has moved from idle speculation to serious consideration, and was a core topic of discussion at a recent National Academy of Sciences workshop.
However, a top Rutgers University professor warned at the meeting that tampering with the planet’s delicate ecosystem could create famines and droughts, threatening the lives of no less than a third of the world’s population.
The plan to shoot aerosols - dust particles - into the earth’s upper stratosphere in an attempt to cool the planet and offset the purported effects of global warming, should be considered as an “emergency response” to a climate crisis, according to Harvard University’s Dan Schrag, who told the workshop that such a crisis was already underway.
“I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we’re already experiencing a climate crisis — whether we’ve already crossed that threshold,” Schrag said.
According to an NPR report on the meeting, University of Calgary’s David Keith urged the introduction of geoengineering experiments on a global scale and that they should be conducted “sooner rather than later”.
But Rutgers University professor Alan Robock warned that such experiments “could create disasters,” damaging the ozone layer and potentially altering the stratosphere by eliminating weather patterns such as the annual Asian monsoon rain season, which 2 billion people rely upon to water their crops and feed the population.
“Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet,” Robock said.
As we have previously highlighted, discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays” has stoked fresh concerns that similar programs are already underway, and that chemtrails are directly connected to such experimentation.
Chemtrails differ from ordinary contrails in that they hang in the sky for hours and are often observed to be emitted from planes that fly criss-cross routes, leading to the formation of ‘X’ and grid-like patterns in the sky. Chemtrails also directly effect localized weather by turning a clear blue sky into a hazy overcast.
Last year, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature. The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.”
KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
As we covered in a previous in-depth report, numerous universities and government agencies have been conducting studies in the field of geoengineering for years.
In addition, the Obama administration’s interest in exploring “geo-engineering” mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.
In a document entitled Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the CFR proposes different methods of “reflecting sunlight back into space,” which include adding “small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere,” adding “more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere,” and placing “various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.”
The proposals in the CFR document match exactly the atmospheric effects observed in the aftermath of chemtrail spraying. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Global Sunscreen Won't Save Corals
Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:27 am
|
|
|
http://media-newswire.com/release_1093653.htm
Global Sunscreen Won't Save Corals
Emergency plans to counteract global warming by artificially shading the Earth from incoming sunlight might lower the planet's temperature a few degrees, but such "geoengineering" solutions would do little to stop the acidification of the world oceans that threatens coral reefs and other marine life, report the authors of a new study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters*. The culprit is atmospheric carbon dioxide, which even in a cooler globe will continue to be absorbed by seawater, creating acidic conditions.
(Media-Newswire.com) - Emergency plans to counteract global warming by artificially shading the Earth from incoming sunlight might lower the planet’s temperature a few degrees, but such “geoengineering” solutions would do little to stop the acidification of the world oceans that threatens coral reefs and other marine life, report the authors of a new study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters*. The culprit is atmospheric carbon dioxide, which even in a cooler globe will continue to be absorbed by seawater, creating acidic conditions.
“There would be a slight reduction in this problem, because land plants would be expected to be able to grow more vigorously in a high CO2, but cool world,” says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, a co-author of the study with lead author Damon Matthews of Concordia University, Canada, and Carnegie geochemist Long Cao. Land plants and soils would hold onto more carbon in this scenario, so less would find its way into the oceans. “However this expansion of the land biosphere, while it’s a slight help to ocean acidification is not enough to make a big difference.”
A widely-discussed proposal for countering warming with geoengineering involves injecting small, reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. This would partially block incoming sunlight before it reached the Earth’s surface, lowering global temperatures just as volcanic ash from the Mount Pinatubo did following its eruption in 1991. But critics have warned that such a scheme might also alter rainfall patterns, damage the planet’s ozone layer, or have other unexpected effects.
Until the current study, which used a computer model of the Earth’s climate system and biosphere to simulate the effect of geoengineering on climate and the ocean’s chemistry, the potential impact of such a scheme on ocean acidification had never been calculated. In the simulations, reduced sunlight cooled the planet as expected,,and it also slightly slowed the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as more carbon was absorbed by natural sinks. But this slight change was not enough to significantly mitigate ocean acidification.
Ocean acidification rivals global warming as a threat to marine ecosystems, especially coral reefs, which need to be surrounded with mineral-saturated water in order to grow. Rising levels of carbon dioxide make seawater more acidic, leading to lower mineral saturation. Recent research has indicated that continued carbon dioxide emissions will cause coral reefs to begin dissolving within a few decades, putting the survival of these ecosystems at extreme risk.
Geoengineering’s minimal effect on ocean acidification adds another factor to the debate over the advisability of intentionally tampering with the climate system. Some see geoengineering as a possibly necessary response to the prospect of devastating climate change caused by increased human emission of greenhouse gases. Others see it as reckless tinkering with the planet’s complex and finely tuned climate system that could do more harm than good.
“Geoengineering approaches come with all sorts of risks,” says Caldiera. “It is important we learn about the the full set of these risks and all of their implications.” He considers deep cuts in human emissions of carbon dioxide to be the most effective safeguard against a global environmental crisis. “One of the good reasons to prefer CO2 emissions reductions over geoengineering is that CO2 emissions reductions will protect the oceans from the threat of ocean acidification, whereas these geoengineering options will not.”
* Matthews, H. D., L. Cao, and K. Caldeira ( 2009 ), Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 28 May 2009 |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Methane controls before risky geoengineering, please
Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:35 am
|
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227146.000-methane-controls-before-risky-geoengineering-please.html
Methane controls before risky geoengineering, please
25 June 2009 by Kirk Smith
WHEN the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force in 1994, climate change's impacts seemed distant. Not any more. With daily reports of changes to glaciers, ice sheets, oceans and ecological systems, climate change seems upon us.
As a result, the debate over what to do is changing. Geoengineering schemes, once considered nearly science fiction, are now discussed seriously. Most attention, though, has focused on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
There is no question that to stop climate change in the long run requires a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions. However, significant opportunities exist to slow warming over the next few decades by reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases.
Only about half the warming that has occurred up to now is due to CO2. The rest is caused by other greenhouse gases, particularly methane (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 97, p 9875). Similarly, less than half of the total warming expected over the next 20 years will be caused by CO2. Methane, along with other gases such as carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and black carbon particles, will cause most of the changes.
Recent modelling shows the way to have the biggest impact on warming over this century is to immediately reduce emission of these gases, and keep them low (International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, vol 1, p 42).
Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. A tonne of methane is responsible for nearly 100 times more warming over the first five years of its lifetime in the atmosphere than a tonne of CO2. Methane is removed from the atmosphere much more rapidly than CO2, with a half-life of 8.5 years compared with many decades for CO2, but a tonne of methane eventually turns to 2.75 extra tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even without taking this into consideration, a tonne of methane emitted today will exert more annual warming than a tonne of CO2 emitted today until 2075. Not until the year 7300 will the cumulative warming exerted by the two become equal. It is truly carbon on steroids.
This makes methane a good target for emissions reductions. Indeed, methane's shorter lifetime means that atmospheric levels are much more responsive to reduction by emissions cuts.
Another important consideration is the impact on human health. Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is one of the least damaging. Methane, on the other hand, is a precursor of ground-level ozone, which is a toxic air pollutant. Carbon monoxide, VOCs and black carbon particles are also directly harmful to human health.
The global health burden from these air pollutants exceeds that of any other environmental risk and even that of some major diseases, including malaria and TB. Cutting methane emissions and those of other health-damaging greenhouse pollutants would thus save many lives.
More serious attention to methane would also change the terms of climate change negotiations, possibly for the better. Taking methane into account would shift some of the burden of responsibility onto developing countries. It may seem unfair to make developing countries more accountable for warming than they are now. But on the other hand, a range of new opportunities would arise for them to participate in tackling global warming. They could therefore benefit from schemes that reward progress in reducing emissions.
Why, then, are methane and the other non-CO2 greenhouse gases not more prominent in discussions over global warming? One reason is that the official weighting scheme to assess the relative impacts of greenhouse gases is out of date and too focused on long-term warming.
According to this scheme, a tonne of methane is equivalent to 21 tonnes of CO2 over a 100-year period. This is out of date - current estimates put the ratio at 25 or more. More importantly, the timescale is all wrong given the urgency we now face. It gives equal weight to measures that will reduce warming in 2109 and warming next year. This is a rather odd perspective: surely reducing next year's warming should be the priority.
Reducing methane levels in the atmosphere would arguably be less painful than reducing CO2. The technology already exists, and reductions would be politically and economically easier to implement. Methane is also easier to handle in international negotiations than black carbon, the next most important non-CO2 greenhouse pollutant, because its impacts are better understood.
Global methane emissions are divided roughly equally between the energy sector (coal mine emissions and leaks from oil and gas wells), waste management (landfill, waste water and animal manure) and agriculture (mainly rice paddies and emissions from livestock).
Reducing livestock and rice production would require changes in consumption, but that is not the case with waste handling and leaks from fossil-fuel systems. Fixes for these do not directly threaten lifestyles and are amenable to direct regulation; no need for controversial carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes.
We urgently need measures that can help keep Earth from overheating while we work to control CO2 emissions. Doing all we can to reduce methane emissions makes more sense than embarking on risky geoengineering schemes.
This fruit is low-hanging, ripe and heavy with immediate benefits. Helping to pick it also means I can tell my grandchildren that, yes, I did do something to directly protect the planet.
Kirk Smith is professor of global environmental health at the University of California, Berkeley |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Study: Geoengineering Won’t Help Oceans
Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:56 am
|
|
|
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/study-geoengineering-wont-help-oceans/
Study: Geoengineering Won’t Help Oceans
By JOHN LORINC
A new study has concluded that geoengineering measures designed to reduce global warming will do little to reduce CO2 levels and, subsequently, ocean acidification.
CO2 that dissolves in salt water produces carbonic acid that undermines shell formation in crustations and coral. The world’s oceans absorb a quarter of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to an international oceanography research network.
“This century will see the end of coral reefs for the next tens of thousands of years,” said Ken Caldeira, a professor of environmental science in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a co-author of the paper.
Earlier this week in Britain, the filmmaker David Attenborough joined marine biologists in calling attention to the situation.
In fact, coral depletion has the potential to be a major economic disaster as well as an ecological catastrophe. An essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs noted that approximately 100 million people living in coastal areas worldwide depend on coral reef ecosystems for their livelihoods. The problem is that attempts to artificially cool the atmosphere, though necessary to avert more polar melting and the release of methane trapped in sub-arctic tundra, won’t slow the build-up of greenhouse gases.
Geoengineering solutions have received a surge of attention in recent months, even though ideas for mechanically altering the atmosphere trace back to the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Some scientists are experimenting with techniques to fertilize oceans so increased plankton growth will absorb excess CO2. Others have studied methods for reflecting sunlight, like seeding white clouds with sea water, launching solar reflectors or painting roofs white, as Energy Secretary Steven Chu famously suggested earlier this year.
Professor Caldeira dismissed most of these approaches as either financially unattainable or, in the case of Secretary Chu’s white roof plan, insufficient. On balance, he said the most technically straightforward and cost-effective approach involves attempts to mimic the effect of large volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
Sulfur-based gases can be introduced inexpensively into the upper atmosphere, where they form sulfate particles that reflect sunlight away from the earth’s surface. As the Foreign Affairs essay notes, the cost would be a fraction of emission reduction efforts that take decades to show results.
“Basically, there was cooling despite an increase in greenhouse gases,” he sad. “The earth didn’t come to an end.” But, Professor Caldeira added, these measures “only make sense in an emergency response context.” |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Focus on climate mitigation; give geoengineering a chance
Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:38 pm
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/focus-on-climate-mitigation-give-geoengineering-a-chance.ars
Focus on climate mitigation; give geoengineering a chance
A new report urges governments and scientists to focus more attention on geoengineering, but not at the expense of conventional climate mitigation strategies.
By Jeremy Jacquot
The impact of different SRM methods on solar radiation fluxes
The Royal Society
What began as a series of model simulations, an attempt by scientists to quantify the climactic effects of a simulated volcanic eruption, could well become an essential component of future efforts to limit the impact of climate change. That is one of the grim takeaways from a report (PDF) published last week by the British Royal Society on the science and governance issues behind geoengineering.
In making its recommendations, the group took a decidedly middle-of-the-road approach, neither pushing for geoengineering too strongly nor disavowing its use entirely. While urging more research and technological development on some of the more promising ideas, the authors emphasized that geoengineering should mainly be seen as a remedy of last resort and not as a valid substitute for conventional emission reduction efforts. Any future efforts should also take public attitudes into consideration, especially when they entail significant costs and consequences.
The report's authors go to considerable length in discussing some of the various schemes that have been proposed in recent years, dispensing with the bureaucratese language that is typical of such documents to present a clear, albeit jargon-heavy, analysis of the respective costs, safety concerns, timeliness, and effectiveness.
The current realities of climate change
In order to better understand the authors' recommendations, it helps to take a step back and consider our current predicament. Most scientists now agree that we need to keep temperatures from rising more than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels to avoid "dangerous" climate change. To stay below that target, global greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and others) would have to be cut at least in half by mid-century.
Even such a substantial reduction would, at best, give us a 50-50 chance of preventing the worst impacts. Climate models predict that atmospheric CO2 levels would need to be capped around 450 ppm (parts per million) to avoid a 2ºC increase; current levels already exceed 380 ppm and, in worst-case scenarios, could surpass 500 ppm by 2050 and even attain 1000 ppm by 2100.
Because of lags in the climate system, there is also no scenario under which emissions could be reduced enough so that global temperatures would peak and begin to decline within the century. Then there’s also the tricky problem of "tipping points" and positive feedbacks. "Tipping" the climate—by accelerating the thawing of the northern permafrost, for example—could create great instability and risk provoking an abrupt climate change, in which the climate system rapidly transitions from one state to another. This sort of event happened around 11,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas event.
A positive feedback occurs when a perturbed system reacts by enhancing the perturbation. For instance, as surface waters in the ocean warm up, their capacity to hold dissolved CO2 weakens; this results in more CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, causing atmospheric and surface water temperatures to rise further.
Carbon dioxide removal
The authors divide the geoengineering methods into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, which pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, which reflect some solar radiation back into space. Though they share the ultimate goal of reducing global temperatures, there are many differences, primarily in terms of costs, timeliness and riskiness, between the two.
CDR techniques, like the use of "artificial trees" (basically large towers) to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, generally have the advantage of being less risky and potentially more feasible. More importantly, they would do more than SRM techniques in terms of keeping the climate in a more stable state by directly removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. In the long term, this could even mean producing "negative emissions," taking more emissions out of the atmosphere than are produced anthropogenically. That would, over time, help to roll back ocean acidification.
While they do not state it outright, this assumes an extremely rosy, perhaps unrealistic, scenario in which we have major leaps in technological innovation and emission reductions. And it's important to reiterate that "less risky" does not mean the same as "no risks." These techniques are likely to take much longer—several decades versus several years—to exert their desired effect.
The specific schemes they considered ranged from technology-driven techniques—biofuels, biomass sequestration, and air capture devices—to what they refer to as "enhanced" natural processes, such as the weathering of rocks. Ocean fertilization techniques, based on all the studies that have already been published on the subject, did not rank particularly high on the authors' list. Indeed, because these are among the few techniques to have already been tested in the field (albeit mostly in an exploratory, small-scale setting), where they've seen little success. Accordingly, the authors argue that their costs, both monetarily and in terms of the potential harm to ecosystems, far outweigh any benefits.
One of the more interesting, yet arguably costly and convoluted, ideas they describe consists of using electrolysis, an electric current to drive an otherwise non-spontaneous reaction, to split the salt found in seawater into a mix of strong bases and strong acids. When dissolved in seawater, strong bases react with CO2 and cause it to be stored in the ocean in the form of bicarbonate, HCO3-. The strong acids would be made to react with silicate rocks, effectively neutralizing them and forming a salt that could dissolve into the ocean.
The process of electrolysis requires a tremendous input of energy, however, and would involve the mass transportation of rocks. Therefore, it would probably be on the costlier end of weathering enhancing processes and much more expensive than other carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) methods.
Of the many techniques they looked at, only enhanced weathering (a process that normally removes CO2 from the atmosphere) scored highly on the effectiveness scale. It was one of the few that the authors believed could both greatly increase carbon storage, both in the soils and in the ocean, and help reverse ocean acidification. However, it received low marks in affordability and timeliness. In addition to taking several decades, if not more, to achieve its intended effect, it would require the mining and transportation of large quantities of rocks and thus expend a tremendous amount of energy.
Solar radiation management
Many of the ideas that come to mind when considering SRM likely revolve around the use of giant solar shields, albedo-enhancing materials, or sunlight-reflecting aerosols. It probably should not come as much of a surprise that the authors deem these schemes to be much more unpredictable, with potentially grave consequences for the planet’s hydrological cycle and ozone layer. On the plus side, they are likely to be cheaper and to take less time to deploy, providing a more effective short-term fix. According to modeling estimates, most SRM methods would need to reduce incoming solar radiation by around two percent to offset a doubling in atmospheric CO2.
Efforts to increase the planet’s albedo (reflectiveness), and thus improve its ability to return more solar radiation to space, do not fare too well on the whole. One idea that has been making the rounds in recent months—painting roofs white (an approach strongly endorsed by Secretary Steven Chu, among others)—received a middling "very low" effectiveness score. It was also one of the least cost-effective techniques that they evaluated.
(Interestingly, the technique got a thumbs-up from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, another British organization, which evaluated it, along with air capture and algal biofuels, in a report on the practical applications of geoengineering published one week earlier.)
Other schemes to increase surface albedo could involve growing more reflective crops and grasslands, but the authors worried that this could reduce primary productivity and yields. Covering large desert areas with reflective polyethylene-aluminium (or other man-made materials) would, needless to say, have significant ecological repercussions.
They devote a sizeable amount of space to stratospheric aerosols, which they consider to be among the most promising SRM methods on the basis of cost and effectiveness. Sulfate particles are a naturally occurring component of the stratosphere, and they're stable enough that they could well do the trick.
The lack of experimental data in this case is made up for by natural evidence: volcanic eruptions, like that of Mount Pinatubo, caused temperatures to cool significantly for a few years by emitting large amounts of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. Depending on whom you ask, somewhere between 1.5 and 5 megatons of sulfur could feasibly be injected into the stratosphere by a fleet of custom-built aircraft every year. The cost estimates range from $3 to $30 per kilogram, which would add up to tens of billions of dollars a year.
The space-based technologies they discuss seem to range from the unlikely to the completely outlandish. The proposed schemes include launching 55,000 mirrors, each with an area of 100 square meters, in random orbits; creating a Saturn-like ring of dust particles with an estimated total mass of over 2 billion tons at an altitude between 2,000 and 4,500 km; and building an armada of trillions of small metallic reflecting disks, each about 50 cm in diameter. Needless to say, despite their potentially high effectiveness, their high costs, risks, and long timescales of implementation make them unrealistic options at the moment.
The most significant downside to the use of SRM methods is their environmental cost. Modeling studies have shown that tweaking the solar radiation budget could affect the planet’s hydrological cycle via large changes in tropical precipitation and change the chemical composition of the stratosphere by depleting the ozone layer.
The unilateral use of such techniques could have large-scale societal and economic effects, inciting regional clashes and otherwise harming international relations between the developed countries that would have the means to deploy them and the poorer countries that would likely suffer.
Preliminary overall evaluation of the geoengineering techniques considered
Image credit: The Royal Society
This diagram provides a solid overview of the schemes the authors examined and their overall assessment of their effectiveness, timeliness, affordability and degree of risk. The size of the dots indicates how timely they are: the larger the size, the quicker they are to implement. The error bars are there only to remind the readers that the size of the point has nothing to do with the scheme’s precision (though, frankly, I find them to be more confusing than helpful). An "ideal" technique would show up as a large green point that would appear in the top right-hand quadrant of the graph.
The key take-home message of this report is that, while conventional mitigation efforts still provide the best bang for our collective buck, and should therefore be the focus of government efforts, geoengineering should at least be considered as a last-minute alternative. We are still far from the day when we will begin building large CO2-absorbing towers or sending reflective satellites into space, but we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to avoid researching the various schemes on offer, particularly if, as many scientists, expect, things will become much worse before they get better. |
| |
|
|
Georgie
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
|
Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:22 pm
|
|
|
It seems very clearly now -as some decent and TRUE Scientists have revealed- that the only thing that WILL become much worse is the UNFORGIVEABLE LIES
about the NEVER EXISTED "Global Warming", and all those slime-subhumans who try to enslave a whole planet...!
The Big Fraud is just begining to Unfold...!
_________________
Georgie |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| What Is Geoengineering and Why Is It Considered a Climate Ch
Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:49 am
|
|
|
ttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-and-climate-change
Is it reasonable to believe that there haven't been lagre-scale geoengineering projects already undertaken, without full disclosure to the public? Plausible deniability would likely eliminate liability for "unintended consequences".
What Is Geoengineering and Why Is It Considered a Climate Change Solution?
Some scientists are calling for more study of technological interventions to forestall catastrophic global warming. Why?
By David Biello
When a report on climate change hit the U.S. president's desk, the suggestion was not to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, scientific advisors counseled intervention via technology in the climate system itself—a practice now known as geoengineering. And the president was not Barack Obama, George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton—it was Lyndon Johnson in 1965.
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels," President Johnson told Congress in February of that year. To address the problem, his science advisors suggested spreading reflective particles over 13 million square kilometers of ocean in order to reflect an extra 1 percent of sunlight away from Earth.
Today, with climate change accelerating and little being done to curb the greenhouse gas emissions, some scientists have resurrected the idea of "deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment," as the U.K.'s Royal Society puts it. After all, it's an idea nearly as old as the understanding of the physical principles behind global warming itself. Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius thought that global warming would be a boon to humanity and therefore fossil fuel burning should be encouraged, after calculating by hand the likely temperature impact of continued coal-burning and rising carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the late 19th century—roughly matching the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer models more than a century later.
That's why 175 scientists and other interested folks (including companies looking to profit from geoengineering) gathered in the Asilomar conference center near the end of March to try to repeat the success of molecular biologists who gathered there in 1975 to reassure a skeptical public about genetic engineering. Ultimately, the gathered would-be geoengineers released a statement calling for, among other things, "further research in all relevant disciplines to better understand and communicate whether additional strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate and ethical."
The list of unintended consequences of human manipulation of natural systems is long: concrete jungles creating urban heat islands, vast oceanic dead zones resulting from fertilizer use on inland agricultural fields, and intentionally introduced species, such as the cane toad in Australia, that then wreak havoc on ecosystems, among others. Whether the idea is to mimic a volcano's cooling impact on climate by continuously pumping sulfates into the stratosphere or to brighten clouds via crewless ships spewing water vapor, possible problems range from shutting down rainfall in certain regions to unilateral declarations of war.
As the Royal Society noted in its 2009 report on geoengineering: "The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change."
Nevertheless, humans are already managing the climate, even with actions intended to improve the environment. A recent decision to cut sulfate pollution from cargo ships will, in effect, further warm the globe as more cooling particles are removed from the sky.
ScientificAmerican.com spoke to climate modeler and geoengineering expert Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who coined the term "solar radiation management" for efforts to dim the sun (though he now prefers "climate intervention"), about why humans might want to get smart about planetary management.
First off, what is geoengineering?
Geoengineering is a word that means many different things to many different people. Typically what people call geoengineering is divided into two major classes. There are approaches which attempt to reduce the amount of climate change produced by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and there are approaches that try to remove greenhouse gases that have already been released to the atmosphere.
The Earth is warmed by sunlight and the heat that is absorbed by the Earth is later re-radiated back to space. Greenhouse gases make it more difficult for the Earth to radiate energy to space. So the two main ways you can cause Earth to cool are either to create conditions such that Earth absorbs less sunlight or make it easier for the Earth to radiate heat energy back to space.
The first category of approaches typically includes things like: putting giant satellites in space to deflect sunlight away from Earth, putting tiny particles in the stratosphere, whitening clouds over the ocean, or perhaps whitening roofs or planting lighter [colored] crops. They are all attempts to deflect sunlight away from Earth.
The second allows more heat energy to escape.
There is one more category that some people propose: that we might take heat that exists near the surface of the Earth and stuff it down deep into the ocean. This hasn't been looked at very much. But it's another way of altering Earth's surface temperatures.
Why do we even need to think about this?
If we froze greenhouse gas concentrations at current levels the Earth would continue to warm for many decades if not centuries. We did a study showing that if we want to stabilize temperatures through emission reductions, they would need to be cut to zero. Emissions would need to be eliminated entirely. Under every emission scenario considered by the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], temperatures continue to increase throughout this century.
Given all of the inertia in the physical climate system, in our energy infrastructure, and our political system, there's really no practical way that emission reductions can reduce the pace of climate change or greatly reduce the amount of climate risk. Emission reductions cannot start cooling the Earth this century, especially if we also control sulfur emissions from power plants, which exert a cooling influence today.
Near the end of this century, if current trends continue, almost every summer in the tropics will be hotter than the hottest yet experienced. That presents the possibility that there could be widespread crop failures and famines. If these kinds of terrible conditions start becoming commonplace we would be facing a situation where many people are starving with the prospect of continued warming for decades and possibly centuries into the future.
Given the enormous stakes and the essential irreversibility of warming through greenhouse gas emission reductions this century, it's only responsible to think about what we would do in the face of a climate emergency. Part of this involves thinking about geoengineering. But we also need to be thinking about developing crop varieties that can grow in hot and dry conditions. We need to be thinking about how to help [developing nations] that can't grow food [in the future] to industrialize so they can get foreign exchange to buy food.
How did you first start studying geoengineering?
I first heard about these ideas in 1998 from [physicist] Lowell Wood, who was a protégé of [physicist and hydrogen bomb–maker] Edward Teller. Teller was pessimistic about human nature and optimistic about technology…. In the mid-1980s, Teller started thinking about climate change. He didn't trust human institutions to develop the capability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So he wondered are there technical means to address the climate change problem which wouldn't require changes in human institutions or human nature? He came across the idea of geoengineering.
Geoengineering has deep historical roots. A 1965 report to President Johnson said warming from greenhouse gases could pose a risk to the U.S. It suggested that we might spread reflective particles across the surface of the ocean and this would offset the warming. The concept of reflecting sunlight to space to address climate change has deeper historical roots than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody suggested that to Johnson.
In 1998, [physicist and geoengineer] David Keith and I were at a meeting with Lowell Wood talking about ways to address climate change. Lowell suggested that we put a bunch of particles high in the stratosphere. I remember thinking, 'Oh, this will never work,' because greenhouse gases work day and night. They work at the North Pole and the equator and in winter or summer. But sunlight is strongest in the day, at the equator and in summer.
So I made an effort to show Lowell Wood was wrong. Back at the office, I worked with colleagues to do simulations that reflected sunlight away. Much to our surprise, reflecting sunlight offset most of the climate effect of increased CO2 both regionally and seasonally.
We set out to show it wouldn't work and our simulation ended up indicating that it basically would…. The resulting climate is pretty similar to the preindustrial climate. It's not exactly the same. You offset 90 percent of the temperature change and maybe 70 percent of the hydrological change.
… [But] CO2 is chemically active and in the oceans forms carbon acid, which attacks the shells and skeletons of marine organisms. These approaches won't do anything to help ocean acidification.
What are the other risks?
There are two main types of risk associated with these climate intervention approaches. One has to do with environmental science and intended or unintended consequences. The other is social, political or even military risks.
In the case of environmental risks, the offsetting of greenhouse gases by increasing the reflection of sunlight is not going to be perfect. Some people, potentially a small minority, will get less rainfall. There is concern about what particles might do to the ozone layer.
In 1991, a volcano in the Philippines known as Mount Pinatubo erupted and sent a huge amount of material into the stratosphere. It reflected two percent of sunlight back to space and Earth cooled by half a degree Celsius. That material fell out of the atmosphere after a year or so but had that material been maintained it would have been more than enough to offset all the global warming expected this century.
After Mt. Pinatubo there was a three percent reduction in the amount of ozone in the atmosphere. This loss of ozone looks like it might be more in springtime and more in northern latitudes. People living in northern Europe could be adversely affected.
… The offsetting of sunlight and CO2 is not perfect. We would expect there to be some impact on ocean circulation. Ocean currents could change dramatically.
We're basically entering into uncharted territory here. There's a host of potential bad things that could happen…. Any time you try to intervene in a complex system, you have unexpected results. But, with greenhouse gases, we are already intervening in a big way in a very complex system.
Environmental consequences are among the least of our worries…. Imagine a scenario where the world has gotten much hotter and China goes into a period of deep drought. The Chinese leaderships says, 'Our people are suffering. We're having a famine. Let's put aerosols in the stratosphere to restore our climate.' It's hard to imagine they would resist deploying that system.
Imagine they do this and then the U.S. goes into a decade or two of similar deep drought. Whether the Chinese intervention was the cause of the American drought or not is almost irrelevant. The U.S. population is highly likely to blame the Chinese for the descent into arid conditions. The potential for great political tension and possibly even military action is high.
I think it's highly likely that as a result of any climate intervention there will be winners and losers. In a nuclear-armed world, a world with terrorism and where losers have the ability to strike back at winners, the potential for the kind of political or military risk to overwhelm any environmental benefits is very real.
The clearest path to environmental risk reduction is greenhouse gas emission reductions. But emissions and global temperatures keep going up and up and up. We need to think about what we'll do if bad things happen…. If we were already on a trajectory of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping the most vulnerable develop their economies, I would feel very comfortable about developing these options. If we're still building coal-fired power plants and gas-guzzling SUVs at the same time we're developing these options? You wonder to what extent are these options facilitating bad behavior.
Can these risks be overcome?
The best way from the environmental perspective would be to kind of tiptoe into climate intervention: ramping it up gradually so if bad things started happening you could ramp it back down again. Unfortunately, that's probably the most politically difficult thing to do. We're never going to get consensus to deploy anything until a real climate crisis in which case the motivation will be to turn on the spigot at once to avert catastrophe. From an environmental perspective, that's the riskiest thing you can do.
Do we need to test these ideas? Or just model them?
It's premature to be doing field-testing of deployment systems. [But] a lot of the science you need to do around climate intervention is the same science you need to understand climate change, like understanding how do particles in the stratosphere affect stratospheric chemistry? How do particles in the lower atmosphere affect cloud formation?… It's really research that climate scientists should be doing anyway.
Where things get more controversial is when you start doing tests that are so big that they start affecting people across international borders or you want to conduct these tests in the oceans. These tests are controversial enough that it would be good to wait until there's a little more consensus that they need to be done.
Who can be trusted with this?
There are companies looking to invest in this research, can they be trusted?
It's a slippery slope. Take the cloud whitening approach. It might be if you had a bunch of ships lightening clouds off the coast of Los Angeles and San Diego, it would blow cooler, moister air over the Desert Southwest of the U.S. There could be a big economic value to producing lighter clouds and there might be a role for private companies in that endeavor. But it's important to develop consensus about how these different issues will be handled before companies go out there doing their own field tests.
… I would like to see government investment. My druthers would be for the [U.S. National Science Foundation] to take leadership in this scientific investigation because I think a lot of the best science is really driven by university-based researchers motivated by the pursuit of truth and not any single outcome.
But can we trust the government?
I don't think we can trust the government. It's willing to kidnap and torture people and engage in secret wars…. [But] peer-reviewed open inquiry promoted by the normal scientific method is an institution that is really wonderful. It's not perfect in that bad papers get published and sometimes results are kept secret that should be more open. Keeping this research in publicly funded, non-classified, open journals is very good.
What is the significance of the recent Asilomar conference on geoengineering?
… The Council on Foreign Relations held a meeting two years ago in [Washington], D.C., on governance of these technologies. Another group held a meeting in Lisbon last year on similar issues. The Royal Society is holding a meeting this fall. There is an ongoing conversation about how to govern these technologies. I see this meeting as a continuation and broadening of that discussion. I have no issue with what happened at the meeting at all. [Caldeira did not attend, because of concerns about the financial interests of the organizers.] These issues are complex and are not going to be resolved in a few days.
Ultimately, do you think we'll ever use these ideas?
Nobody can foresee the future. I have friends who think it's almost certain that these kinds of systems will someday be deployed. My hunch is that we will never deploy these systems.
But I think the stakes are high enough that we need to understand whether these systems can help in the event of a climate crisis…. Experts are very bad at predicting the future. All we can do is develop options that we think can reduce risk under a wide range of scenarios. There's a non-zero chance that terrible outcomes might happen [as a result of climate change]. We should prepare for them. Because the cost of catastrophe is so large and the cost of developing [geoengineering] is so relatively small.
Whether it's ever deployed? I hope not.
[ |
| |
|
|
Georgie
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:33 pm
|
|
|
quote:
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels," President Johnson told Congress in February of that year. To address the problem, his science advisors suggested spreading reflective particles over 13 million square kilometers of ocean in order to reflect an extra 1 percent of sunlight away from Earth.
Let me add a small correction here...
Not even Pr. Johnson had been informed right about it...!
The first time CO2 started to ...kill this hapless planet was around 1918-1922! Other serious info placing it even further back to around 1875..., that's when first talk about the ...cursed CO2 came out!!!
Really, does anybody remember other 'famous and reliable' studies around 1970's that were "predicting" that at this time around, -this very minute I 'm typing this and you're reading it- the world should have FREEZED...???
Furthermore, does anybody remember what they were saying back in 1977 during the first Fuel Crisis -as they named it- ?
Another banch of 'famous and reliable' studies came out in waves, again from the most 'respected' places predicting the end of deposits of the (god damned) fossil fuels in 40to50 years time..., aka... today...?
One more "end of the world" added to the list!
"Respected" science, anyone?
But one has all the reasons to ask :
Hey, what happened in the meantime???
How many times since then, the Earth has fried, baked or frozen?
How many deaths should we ALL have died until today??
When this knavery will stop?
Geo..what...???
No, thanks! We don't need more 'Gods' playing around...
We can't even manage with the existing ones...
Some other time maybe...
or better...,
Some other time IN another planet...
_________________
Georgie |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Hack The Planet
Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:41 pm
|
|
|
Hopefully you are sufficiently aware to realize that my posting of this information does not in any way indicate my endorsement of geoengineering on a planetary scale. I am simply documenting the accelerating discussion of this approach to mitigate global climate change.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047052426X,descCd-buy.html
Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope - or Worst Nightmare - for Averting Climate Catastrophe
An inside tour of the incredible—and probably dangerous—plans to counteract the effects of climate change through experiments that range from the plausible to the fantastic
David Battisti had arrived in Cambridge expecting a bloodbath. So had many of the other scientists who had joined him for an invitation-only workshop on climate science in 2007, with geoengineering at the top of the agenda. We can't take deliberately altering the atmosphere seriously, he thought, because there’s no way we'll ever know enough to control it. But by the second day, with bad climate news piling on bad climate news, he was having second thoughts. When the scientists voted in a straw poll on whether to support geoengineering research, Battisti, filled with fear about the future, voted in favor.
While the pernicious effects of global warming are clear, efforts to reduce the carbon emissions that cause it have fallen far short of what’s needed. Some scientists have started exploring more direct and radical ways to cool the planet, such as:
· Pouring reflective pollution into the upper atmosphere
· Making clouds brighter
· Growing enormous blooms of algae in the ocean
Schemes that were science fiction just a few years ago have become earnest plans being studied by alarmed scientists, determined to avoid a climate catastrophe. In Hack the Planet, Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch looks more closely at this array of ideas and characters, asking if these risky schemes will work, and just how geoengineering is changing the world.
Scientists are developing geoengineering techniques for worst-case scenarios. But what would those desperate times look like? Kintisch outlines four circumstances: collapsing ice sheets, megadroughts, a catastrophic methane release, and slowing of the global ocean conveyor belt.
As incredible and outlandish as many of these plans may seem, could they soon become our only hope for avoiding calamity? Or will the plans of brilliant and well-intentioned scientists cause unforeseeable disasters as they play out in the real world? And does the advent of geoengineering mean that humanity has failed in its role as steward of the planet—or taken on a new responsibility? Kintisch lays out the possibilities and dangers of geoengineering in a time of planetary tipping points. His investigation is required reading as the debate over global warming shifts to whether humanity should Hack the Planet. |
| |
|
|
Georgie
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:27 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Hopefully you are sufficiently aware to realize that my posting of this information does not in any way indicate my endorsement of geoengineering on a planetary scale. I am simply documenting the accelerating discussion of this approach to mitigate global climate change.
For every word I post here -or anywhere else- I stand behind...!
I am not using myriads of studies, findings or other peoples views just for 'information' and 'debate'..., only to put them 'aside' later...
If I post something it also means I relatively am supporting it too. if not, I state otherwise! That's what 99% of people do!
If you were just "simply documenting" then why are you bothered so much? Why the need for such a clarification...? It wasn't your signature on it, was it?
From your way of putting words and from your obvious annoyance, it's quite clear what you endorse or not.
_________________
Georgie |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Palin: America does not need ‘this snake oil science stuff’
Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
|
|
|
I am annoyed by ignorance, especially that which is motivated by self interest and greed. Fortunately there are people like Rachael Maddow who is willing to address the insanity of that spouted by Sarah Palin and mindlessly consumed by her servile Tea Baggers.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0410/palin-this-snake-oil-science-stuff/
Palin: America does not need ‘this snake oil science stuff’
By Stephen C. Webster
Up yours, scientists.
That's essentially the message sent by former politician Sarah Palin during a recent speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, where she disparaged the work of thousands of the world's top minds to the delight of a large crowd that laughed, clapped and cheered her on the whole way.
She was addressing the increasingly urgent matter of global climate change when Palin whipped out a gem of a quote, telling the conference-goers that American does not need "this snake oil science stuff" and calling climate science "Gore-gate."
The former half-term governor was attempting to make a reference to the so-called "Climate-gate" affair that was orchestrated over a set of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, providing the world with insight to an internal dispute between teams of scientists. The whole "scandal" is better known to MSNBC host Rachael Maddow as "total bull-pucky": fictional claims blown so out of proportion by right-wing media that the masses at least partially accept it.
In the midst of describing what she thinks America really needs, Palin belted out a truly amazing run-on sentence: "We should create a competitive climate for investment and for renewables and alternatives that are economical and doable and none of this snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff that came down where there was revelation that the scientists, some of these scientists were playing political games."
"Nothing about the supposed 'bombshell' climate-gate scandal at all challenges the scientific consensus that global warming is happening, that it is induced by human activity," Maddow scoffed during an April 2 broadcast.
Maddow called the alleged scandal, like the falsified claims that ultimately brought down ACORN, the "un-mooring of politics from fact," calling out a least two dozen other Republican-created media narratives that are complete "bull."
For Palin to play off a fictional theme is expected at this point, as she once fashioned a popular campaign meme off the laughable invention that President Obama "pals around with terrorists." In spite of this, it is perhaps her insistence that the United States does not need "this snake oil science stuff" that best highlights the place from which her beliefs spring.
To her credit, Palin has at least been been remarkably consistent on this point, actually calling on President Obama to insult the international community and boycott last year's Copenhagen climate summit over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia. Even then, in December 2009, she was whipping up her fans with the term "snake oil" and claiming that because a small group of people had a dispute over data methodologies, the entire body of knowledge generated by tens of thousands from around the world was suddenly void.
Palin wrote on her Facebook page that "the leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming."
yellow]She failed to explain how this negates other scientists' work, or how former Vice President Al Gore was involved.[/color]
This video is from Sarah Palin's speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on April 8, 2010, snipped by Think Progress.
Watch Palin talk about "this snake oil science stuff":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSxz4mTzSI0&feature=player_embedded
This video is from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, snipped by FireDogLake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9KjQUSZXqE&feature=player_embedded
...and here's Jesse Ventura providing some insight on Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann:
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11245 |
| |
|
|
Georgie
Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
|
Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:14 am
|
|
|
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above little 'piece' is one of the most serious emails in the ClimateGate Scandal (No Quotes!) sent by the 'master' figure of Pr. Phil Jones to colleagues...
No Scandal when prompting " to delete as appropriate "...?????
No Scandal when asking NOT " to tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act! "...??????
Of course there's no scandal... It's only plain clear and total Whitewash!
"Total bull-pucky"(!), "fictional claims" (!!), "Nothing about the supposed 'bombshell' climate-gate scandal at all challenges the scientific consensus that global warming is happening, that it is induced by human activity," (!!!)
What a liar this poor lady is!
Judging by the way she is "informing" her unfortunate audience, like all these miserable "scientists" were "studying and informing" we have solid proof Why and How the Global Warming Hoax stood alive for so long!
But for once I give you this credit:
You have PERFECTLY picked up the most appropriate words that inextricably
describe Global Warming Scam :
Ignorance, Self Interest, and most of all... Greed!!!
Taking "smart" turns and keep pretending won't do you any good, believe me...
So I better leave you now alone with your long posts and studies to figure out how to " Hack the Planet "...,
I am going out to catch some life-giving Sunlight and take afew deep breaths just to exhale some more God-damned and cursed CO2 to further ...destroy poor Mother Earth!
Thanks for confirming my previous words...
Bye-bye Sore Throat...
Bye-bye Global Warming...  
Some other Time ON some other Planet...
_________________
Georgie |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Global Warming — Fact or Myth?
Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:20 pm
|
|
|
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-warming-facts-myths-0409
Global Warming — Fact or Myth?
6 common misunderstandings about global warming. Or is that climate change?
Fact or Myth? "Snowmageddon" and all those other weird U.S. snowstorms this winter prove that global warming isn't real.
Myth
The reaction to "Snowmageddon" is an example of a common misunderstanding about climate change. Weather events are not climate; climate is the accumulation of weather events over an extended period of time. So a cold summer day doesn't prove global warming is false any more than a heat wave in winter proves it's true. That said, the effects scientists predict from global warming are sometimes counterintuitive. While snow is associated with winter, warmer winter temperatures can result in more snow, since warmer air can hold more moisture. One of the most well-documented predictions about global warming is that it will result in more intense storms, in any season, but may leave longer droughts between those storms.
Fact or Myth? The U.N. scientific report on global warming was full of errors and should not be trusted.
Myth
There have been errors discovered in the U.N.'s landmark report on climate science. The errors concern facets of climate change, like how fast Himalayan glaciers have melted, or how fast sea levels will rise in the Netherlands. The errors are a black eye for an organization that won a Nobel Peace Prize for the authoritative work it has done on the subject. However, these errors amount to t's left uncrossed and i's left undotted. The sentences still read loud and clear about the overall consensus about fundamental issues: That the Earth is warming, that our pollution is a primary cause, and that continued warming would have consequences worldwide, many of them costly to human life and property, and to wildlife.
Fact or Myth? There has been no global warming in the past 10 or 15 years.
Myth
The hottest year ever recorded was in 1998, according to measurements by the British University of East Anglia, or 2005 (with 1998 ranking very close) according to measurements by NASA. Both agree that the first decade of the 21st century was the hottest ever recorded, which means the hottest since the 1880s. Comparing the temperature to other data hidden in the natural world, like tree rings or layers of Arctic ice, scientists can determine that we're likely experiencing temperatures higher than any time in thousands of years.
"Climate change" is a more accurate description for what's happening than "global warming."
Fact
While it is true that the world as a whole is warming, "climate change" is more accurate, particularly when it comes to how individuals in different regions will experience these changes. Global warming is the driving force, but climate change is what we will experience. What will climate change look like? It could mean more intense storms or more prolonged droughts. It could mean more risk of wildfires in one area, and more flooded basements in another. It could make one farmer's field more productive, while killing that of another. Some even have called the effects of climate change "global weirding." In general, scientists expect climate change will affect different regions very differently.
Fact or Myth? Carbon dioxide is natural. Breathing is not pollution.
Myth
There's nothing wrong with breathing, of course, and nothing unnatural about carbon dioxide. Breathing is not causing the world any harm. So if carbon dioxide exhaled in our breath is harmless, how can carbon dioxide "exhaled" by power plants, tailpipes and factories be a problem? A clue lies in the name we have for what we burn: fossil fuels. By burning coal, oil and gas, we take carbon that had been buried deep underground for millions of years, and we transfer it to the atmosphere. There, it acts as a chemical greenhouse, trapping more of the sun's heat close to the Earth's surface. There's about 40% more carbon in the atmosphere today than there was in pre-industrial times. In fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher today than at any point in the last 650,000 years, before humans walked the Earth -- before even Neanderthals walked the Earth. Natural processes also have an effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (those early human-like species weren't driving SUVs), and other factors affect the climate beyond the makeup of chemicals in the atmosphere, but scientists studying the causes of global warming agree that human pollution is a driving force for the climate change we've documented in recent decades.
Fact or Myth? Even if we stopped driving cars completely today, the climate would not be affected.
Fact
Carbon dioxide, which is released from burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, survives for years or decades. When you hear news reports stating that other gasses are "more potent" than carbon dioxide, it's often because they last even longer in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, trapping heat all the while. The fact is, the pollution we've emitted in the past will stay with us for some time. So why act now? We understand today that future generations will have to deal with planetary changes we're setting in motion. Past generations didn't have the knowledge we do.
Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-warming-facts-myths-0409#ixzz0koxJhiXn |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| What Are They Spraying Us With? - Pt II
Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm
|
|
|
http://www.rense.com/general90/spray.htm
What Are They Spraying Us With? - Pt II
Could Aluminum, Barium and Other Substances From Stratospheric Aerosol
Geo-Engineering Programs be Destroying Eco-Systems around the World?
By Michael J. Murphy
4-11-10
What would you do if you were told that toxic substances being sprayed into the sky are falling to the ground and decimating eco-systems around the world? This very claim, made by concerned citizens outside the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting last month in San Diego, sparked my interest to investigate further.
The AAAS meeting hosted several top geo-engineering scientists who gathered to discuss the "plausibility" of implementing various geo-engineering programs throughout the world. One of the options addressed was the stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering (SAG) , AKA chemtrail program, where scientists discussed the "plausibility" of spraying aerosol aluminum, barium and other particles into the sky to block the sun as a means to "reduce" the Earth's temperature. When asked specifically about the potential risks associated with using aluminum in the program as an aerosol, scientists replied by stating that they have not studied much about the risks associated with aluminum and added that something terrible could be found tomorrow that they haven't looked at. When probed further about the deployment of existing aerosol programs, the scientists stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been deployed to date.
The concerned citizens I met outside the meeting were claiming quite the opposite. They came in protest after witnessing airplanes that they believe are regularly spraying aerosols into the upper-part of the sky. Many from this group have tested and found extremely high levels of aluminum, barium and other substances in their soil, rain, water and snow. Ironically, the substances that they reported finding are the same substances the scientists are "considering" implementing in the various aerosol spraying programs discussed at the meeting. They also believe that these substances are leading to the destruction of eco-systems and are coming from already deployed SAG programs. Due to the severity of this issue and my desire to know the truth, I was led to Shasta County in the Northern part of California to investigate not only the claims of what is being reported in the sky, but also claims of what is in the rain, water, snow and soil from what many residents are saying is the result of SAG programs.
The first stop on this trip led me to Dane Wigington's beautiful 2000 acre property overlooking Lake Shasta. As we toured his breath-taking land, he pointed to multiple trails that blanketed the sky. He claimed the trails are present on most days above Northern California. Wigington referred to this as a "moderate spraying day". Like many other residents in Shasta County, Wigington moved to the area to get away from the heavy pollution of Southern California that he grew up with as a child. His dreams of living off the land and becoming one with nature are now coming to a grinding halt as he is focusing his time and energy on the issue of geo-engineering.
Wigington became concerned about SAG when he began to notice dramatic changes in the solar power that he uses to supply his home and property. Owner of one of the largest residential solar systems in Northern California, he began to notice very high declines in solar power. It can be decreased by as much as 60 percent on what he calls "heavy spraying days". Wigington said, "The trails are literally blocking the sun". He also went on to say that he regularly samples the fine dust layers on top of his solar panels and other outdoor surface areas and frequently finds very high levels of aluminum and barium. Wigington believes that these are a product of SAG programs.
At the same time as finding decreased solar power, Wigington also began to witness dramatic changes on his property as the trees, grass, insects and wildlife started dying. This led him to get his first rain test just four years ago. The results were shocking as they found aluminum levels at 7 ug/l or 7 parts per billion. Although aluminum can be found around the world in smaller quantities, geo-hydrologists told him that this number was quite high. Since that time, he has had aluminum tests escalate as high as 50,000 percent to 3,400ug/l. That is literally toxic rain. These results prompted him to get additional pH tests from two USDA soil scientists which yielded more shocking results. The pH of the soil was 6.6 in one area and 7.4 in another. This is over 11 times the normal alkalinity of the soil which should be in the range of 5.0 to 5.5. It is important to note the tests were taken in the forest far removed from any highway or industry.
When asked what these changes can do to the ecosystem, Wigington replied by saying that it is devastating. He went on to say, "if this continues, we can only expect to see things get much worse. Not only are we seeing our trees dying here, but also a major decline in our wildlife and fish". As a matter of fact, Wigington stated that according to The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the salmon run, once seen in abundance in this area has declined from 769,868 in 2002 to 39,530 in 2009. That is over a 90 percent decline. Amazingly enough, this decline started occurring about the same period of time when residents began to see a dramatic increase in what they believe to be SAG programs. Wigington's efforts to get these issues and test results addressed has been largely ignored by government agencies and officials.
After a closer look at Wigington's property, my initial awe of the beauty and breath taking views led to sadness, frustration and anger over the contamination that is literally destroying the eco-system. This led me to investigate further by seeking an expert in biology. I packed up the car and headed north to the breathtaking town of Mt. Shasta. Mt. Shasta has been known for its beauty, clean air and as being the source of water for some bottled water companies. Many travel from around the world to mountain climb and vacation in this beautiful part of Western America.
Francis Mangels, BS in Forestry, Masters in zoology and a retired soil conservationist and wildlife biologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for over thirty five years, welcomed me into his beautiful home in the town of Mt. Shasta to discuss the "hidden" crisis that is occurring. Mangels alerted me to the rapid decline of fish in the nearby rivers and streams. Mangels brought me to a nearby creek that had an abundant supply of fish just a few years ago. Because the primary diet of the fish in the creek is aquatic insects, he performed a standard sample method to measure the amount of insects present. The samples he had performed before the alleged aerosol spraying campaign had yielded an average of 1000 aquatic insects. Our sample yielded only 31. This is over a 96% decline from samples taken just a few years ago. Mangels stated that because the fish live off of the insects, they are literally starving. This rapid decline is likely due to changes in the chemistry of the water. The only changes that Mangels is aware of are the dramatic increases of aluminum, barium and strontium which he believes is from SAG programs.
We also took time to test the pH of nearby soil and snow which contained over 10 times the alkalinity of the normal pH. Mangels has evidence that this drastic change in pH is also due to the massive increases of aluminum. He stated that forests, fields and farm ecologies thrive in acidic soils. Aluminum acts as a buffer that increases alkalinity and can decimate ecologies in large amounts. Mangels also pointed out that snow on Mt. Shasta was tested and sent to theEnvironmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) who found results that contained 61,100 ug/l or parts per billion of aluminum and 83 ug/l of barium. The normal amount of aluminum in the snow at Mt. Shasta is 0.5 ug/l. Drinking water allowable is 50ug/l. That means that the snow on Mt. Shasta has tested at 1200 times more poisonous than water standards allow for aluminum. Mangels said, "Mountain climbers that come from around the world are drinking the poisonous water from the snow on the mountain". Mangels went on to say that government action is required at just 1000 ug/l of detected aluminum. Although he alerted several government agencies of these findings, no governmental action has been taken to date.
Mengels brought me to several other locations around the town of Mt. Shasta where he tested the soil, rain, water and snow that also yielded tests that revealed the pH to be over ten times the normal alkalinity. He went on to say that these types of changes in soil, water and snow are very uncommon except in other areas around the world where people have been witnessing what many believe to be spraying from SAG programs. Mengels also stated that these changes have produced an "ecological crisis" and will have horrible consequences if continued. Mengels said, "Losses to our economy will be incredible and are on their way as we speak. Tree growth will be decreased which will result in the loss of logging jobs. It is also causing the decline of naturally occurring plant and grassgrowth that occurs in the normally acidic soils of grazing pastures, resulting in the demise of our grazing industry, fishing industry, and worst of all, basic agriculture in Northern California."
What is amazing is that these tests and many others throughout the world are largely being ignored by the very governmental entities that are required to address them. Some politicians, like Mt. Shasta City Council member Ed Valenzuela may choose to ignore the issue. Valenzuela was made aware of the mass contamination at a city council meeting where he stated that the city did not want to sample the water for aluminum because the request was a "can of worms" that would, "open a Pandora's box" that the city would have to pay for. Although several local citizens volunteered to pay the $22.00 cost of the test at an EPA lab, both Republican Committee Chairman Russ Porterfield, and Valenzuela voted no to having the water tested. The mayor Stearns wanted the test, but was overruled by a 3-2 vote. This response is not uncommon as Mengels has presented this issue and his scientific data to over 15 local and federal agencies including Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer's office. To date he has received no response or action.
Is it a coincidence that the substances found in the rain, snow and soil in this region and around the world match the exact substances that scientists are "considering" implementing in various geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world? If not, then why have agencies and officials largely ignored these findings that are destroying our planet's eco-system? Could it be that officials are fearful of exposing a massive cover-up of a world-wide ecological crime? Or is it the belief that this issue is simply too large and too complicated a problem for them to tackle? Whatever the reason for this ignorance, we need to demand that our questions and shocking test results get addressed not only in Shasta County, but in every part of the world. Our future on this planet is dependent on this issue being addressed.
Because this movement has come under attack from those who appear to be protecting the many political and corporate interests associated with SAG, it is essential that all of us around the world get involved by testing the rain, snow, soil and various outdoor surfaces and reporting the results to our elected officials and local environmental agencies. We must also reach out and educate all those involved with SAG who might be unaware of the environmental implications associated with their programs. Testing for pH changes and metals is simple and can be performed almost anywhere at a nominal price.
Simple testing instructions and more information about geo-engineering programs can be found on the internet at www. <http://geoengineeringwatch.org>geoengineeringwatch.org.
Biologist Francis Mengels can be contacted by e-mail at <mailto:bioguy0311@sbcglobal.net>bioguy0311@sbcglobal.net for more information on this issue, the tests he has performed and suggestions on testing procedures. Please take action by testing, reporting and demanding answers on this ever so important issue. Both nature and humanity depend on it.
For more information, please contact me at <mailto:whtagft@hotmail.com>whtagft@hotmail.com or visit my blog: <http://truthmediaproductions.blogsot.com>http://truthmediaproductions.blogsot.com. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
| Witness to Mediagate: Making Sense of the "Climategate
Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:29 pm
|
|
|
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/dimaggio060410.html
Witness to Mediagate: Making Sense of the "Climategate Scandal"
by Anthony DiMaggio
Leading global scientists have been exonerated of blame in the "climategate" controversy, although this won't stop right-wing and corporate-funded pundits from attacking the science of global warming. The British government recently released its first investigation on the activities of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit, finding no evidence that its scientists manipulated data or distorted the peer review process in order to exaggerate evidence or offer fraudulent findings that global warming is occurring and that humanity shares major responsibility. As the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee reported, "the scientific reputation of Professor [Phil] Jones [one of the major scientists accused of manipulating data] and [EAU's] CRU [Climate Research Unit] remains intact." Controversy regarding the EUA "scandal" goes back to November 2009, when more than 1,000 emails were stolen from the CRU and circulated to right-wing activists in the U.S. and abroad in an effort to discredit the science of global warming. The notion that scientists in Britain or the United States are leading some sort of secret conspiracy involving individual researchers, the peer review process, and scientific academic journals is clearly debunked in this report.
The British government's assessment mirrors that of Pennsylvania State University, which reviewed the work of Michael Mann, a leading global climate scientists affiliated with that institution. Mann was linked to "climategate" through his correspondence with EAU climate scientists, allegedly demonstrating his complicity in fudging evidence of global warming. Penn State released its own report in February, which cleared Mann of all charges that he manipulated or hid data that refuted global warming, attempted to hide or destroy emails with EAU colleagues, unethically dealt with confidential information, or that any of his actions "seriously deviated from accepted practices" driving professional scientific research. Penn States' review specifically addressed the most controversial claim against Mann and the EAU: that they had employed a statistical "trick" to "hide" declines in global temperature (think the "global cooling" theory, as pushed by conservative pundits). As Penn State concluded:
While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a "trick" to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones [of EAU] and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called "trick" was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
One of the most important questions to come from "climategate" is why we continue to tolerate propagandistic corporate media that perpetrate paranoid misinformation and lies. I've documented the ways in which the mass media -- involving both right-wing and center-left elements -- attempt to construct an artificial "debate" about whether global warming is occurring (see "Manufactured Dissent," March 21, 2010, and "A Culture of Denial," November 20, 2009). We need to move away from the notion that there is some secret scandal involving scientists and global warming, and focus on the reality that a scandal does exist, but one that is driven by for-profit media that contribute to growing public ignorance. We need to start talking about a mediagate, rather than a "climategate" or any other "gate" driven by paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists.
Much of my intellectual career as of late is devoted to demonstrating how increased consumption of news is positively associated with growing political ignorance and the ascendancy of right-wing views among the news-following public. In the case of global warming, increased media consumption is associated with opposition to legal initiatives designed to combat climate change, and increasingly ignorant beliefs about scientific research covering global warming.
The most recent public opinion figures from last month are startling. According to Gallup, just 38 percent of Americans feel that the environment "should be given priority" over economic growth -- a disturbing conclusion since it assumes that economies can properly function without a healthy environment. Furthermore, de-prioritization of the environment has grown since 2007, when 55 percent of Americans said that the environment "should be given priority" over economic growth. More food for thought: as of March 2010, Gallup finds that 48 percent think the "seriousness of global warming" is "exaggerated (an increase of 18 percent since 2006); 67 percent think that global warming will not "pose a serious threat" to the public in their lifetime (an increase of nearly ten percent since 2008).
Public assessments that the effects of global warming will not be felt in our lifetime are deeply problematic for those committed to preventing human extinction. In the United States alone, officials and scientists warn of the dangers of California's water crisis and its relationship to global warming. Lester Snow, California's Department of Water Resources Director, worries that "climate change is bringing us higher highs and lower lows in terms of water supplies." Such concern is apt in light of cities like Los Angeles, which suffered its driest year from 2006 to 2007, with just three inches of rain, preceded by a 2004-2005 rainfall of 37 inches. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently declared an emergency situation in light of the state's drought problems. Schwarzenegger mandated a rationing of water, which was accompanied by state court efforts to limit water extracted from rivers in order to preserve endangered ecosystems.
The Obama administration's Energy Secretary Steven Chu -- himself a scientist -- warns that California may face a state of permanent drought by 2050, with the state no longer able to sustain agriculture and city life as we know it. This warning is reinforced by the U.S. Geological Survey and the journal Science. As Science reported in 2007, "the levels of aridity of the recent multiyear drought or the Dust Bowl and the 1950s droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades" if modern computer models and predictions are correct. California's Department of Water Resources estimated in a 2009 survey that the state's mountains were able to carry just 61 percent of the water volume of previous years. The Sierra Mountains -- which provide two thirds of the state's fresh water -- are predicted to retain 25 to 40 percent less snow by 2050 in light of growing atmospheric CO2 concentrations and increasing global temperatures. The effects of global warming -- then -- will not be limited to poor second and third world countries, but will also be felt in the first world, and in our lifetime.
Progressives need to join together and engage in a battle to convince their friends, acquaintances, and family that simply paying attention to the mass media is no longer enough if one wants to be informed about vital issues. Increased consumption of corporate media exclusively -- as I document on many issues -- not only fails to educate the public on public policy matters but often actively increases ignorance. This is something that should enrage everyone on the left -- and the American public more generally. We desperately need to find ways to expand the progressive, non-corporate press in this country. It's time to stop simply highlighting the problem but to become part of the solution. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
