COLOR CHANGE: Blue skies could turn white if geoengineering schemes are every employed to reflect away the sun's rays using sulfate particles, mimicking a volcanic eruption.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Merikanto
The white haze that hangs over many major cities could become a familiar sight everywhere if the world decides to try geoengineering to create a cooler planet.
Scientists have long suspected that one oft-discussed geoengineering technique -- shooting tiny sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to deflect sunlight -- could turn the blue sky white. Nature has already provided a basic proof of concept. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, spewing tons of sulfate particles in the atmosphere, it temporarily whitened the sky.
Now a new study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science attempts to determine just how big the effect from man-made geoengineering would be.
Adding enough sulfate to the stratosphere to block 2 percent of the sun's light would make the sky three to five times brighter, they report in a paper that will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
That is roughly the level of sulfate geoengineering needed to counteract the warming that would result if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climbed to 560 parts per million, up from roughly 390 ppm today.
The world might be cooler, but blue skies would become a little less blue, the scientists report. Even remote, sparsely inhabited areas would lie under a whitish sky resembling the haze that now blankets cities like Paris.
And the injection of a continuous stream of sulfate particles would lend sunsets a man-made afterglow.
"People who are used to living in New York might not notice a difference, but people in the mountains might notice a difference," said lead author Ben Kravitz, a postdoctoral researcher at the Carnegie Institution.
"What happens when you put a layer of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, they scatter light. But they don't scatter light equally. Depending on the size of the particle, they might scatter blue light differently than red light."
It is that scattering effect that would change the sky's appearance, he said.
Some people might not notice. Others might not care. But even folks who can't tell a picture-postcard blue sky from its milky, geoengineered cousin might be able to detect other side effects of using sulfate to cool the planet.
Blocking just 2 percent of sunlight that would normally reach the Earth -- the scenario depicted in the study -- would probably be enough to create measurable drops in energy created by concentrated solar thermal power systems, which rely on direct sunlight.
But it could be a boon to plants, which showed a small but measurable uptick in growth in the months after Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991.
That's because injecting sulfate particles into the atmosphere -- by volcano or man-made methods -- scatters enough of the sun's rays to increase the diffuse sunlight many plants thrive on. The resulting uptick in photosynthesis would likely increase the amount of carbon pulled from the atmosphere by plants, researchers said.
Majority frowns on geoengineering -- poll
Meanwhile, a poll released this week by the Brookings Institution suggests that Americans are concerned about the safety and effectiveness of geoengineering.
Sixty-five percent of participants said they somewhat or strongly disagree that if global warming takes place, "scientists would be able to find ways to alter the climate in a way that limits problems."
A slimmer majority, 45 percent, disagreed with the notion that scientists could develop "atmospheric engineering" methods to cool the planet.
But most of the 887 participants in the survey -- 69 percent -- said they "strongly" or "somewhat" believed the harm from adding material to the atmosphere would outweigh the benefits. The poll carries a margin of error of 3.5 percent.
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentAnd how toxic is this sulfate to people and animals lungs? Probably far worse than living with the present rate of CO2 output. I'm pretty sure that any cure that the government takes will be far worse than the disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy guess is that they wouldn't be talking about it if it were too toxic to be used safely. By the way, which government are you talking about? I think this would be in any case of UN level, not up for an individual state to decide, seeing as it will affect us all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlus, it might help reduce the levels of CO2 and other plant-absorbable greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so that would help with toxicity, as well.
Just my two cents...
Wow, people still think warming might not be real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt IS real, no matter how much or how little actually is going on, it isn't just some fluke that'll die out by itself without something changing. We need to stop thinking our actions are insignificant enough to not matter, and take matters into our own hands, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION.
You say we can't imagine ice ages, but you seem to have a fine time imagining a two mile thick ice cap over america....
And preferring a balmy north pole just shows how much respect you have of the animals and plants that already live there, who are perfectly adapted to a climat and environment that was colder, and is getting slowly hotter. Once again, "not in my backyard" triumphs over compassion. <sigh>
And nitrogen is also already in the atmosphere, and is natural, but it would be a problem if there was too much of it as well. Natural doesn't mean harmless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJayjader
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny government by themselves is bad enough but let the UN get involved and it will be far worse.
The idea that the government wouldn't be talking about it makes it automatically safe is silly the U.S used to claim smoking was good for health and gave it free to the military in WWII. They, the government, also installed asbestos in everything from ships to houses to brake pads.
I'm sure there are hundreds of other samples of the gov's doing things once thought to be safe and since proven otherwise and this would be to big of a gamble to even try. At least we know that it would take a 20% CO2 atmosphere before mankind is damaged and since we are at only 0.04% we have a long safe road ahead of us.
I think you are a very stupid republican and I have no respect for you whatsoever, but I do agree with you on this procedure bringing on a premature ice age a lot faster than the CO1 that we are stoking the atmosphere with. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to get this CO2 thing out of your thinking, but it is CO1 from fossil fuel burning power plants and auto exhaust that is heating up our atmosphere and not CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop using fossil fuel of all kinds, and it is easy to do, and convert our autos over to electric and our atmosphere will clean itself up in a short period of time; maybe not in your life time, but in our children's life time.
Well since I am not a republican I suspect personal comments are pointless to discuss. However, I find you warmists to be morons since we will play here. I work in a career where facts and information have to actually be real at some point not generated by computer models and in general when stating something as likely or a fact, there is data backing it up without doubt not cherry picked data and plugged numbers like your arrogantly defined global average temperature and your belief you have chosen the exactly right temperature the world "should" be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes anyone who has been alive and out of diapers for the last 40 years can easily see the blizzards of the late 70s and 80s have gone away, the globe appear warmer. Unfortunately for you warmists, you actually dont know why. You can hold committed and votes and declare consensus and declare a flat world this warming is bad, unnatural or caused by CO2 but this does not make it proven fact. In fact, it is likely we cant get the right kind of data to make these predictions or conclusions anyway simply because the data is simply too little to work with. Sorry to break it to you but collecting the temperate data of the 19 alchemists around Europe in the 18th century and declaring that somehow enough to compare to today is insane. Even what we have today is only a measure of the tiniest amount of the atmosphere. The data is simply not enough.
What we do know is the earth has warmed and cooled in the past and to extremes far more drastic that your models predict and it was all natural. You simply have to have more compelling evidence than doctored computer models to declare this time is only from humans.
I know you warmists are like any socialist, your ideology is more important than reality so you are not likely to realize these problems with your claims.
All that said, you people are totally insane to sit in your ivory towers and declare the evils of CO2 pollution, which at best might be a contributor to the warming, even a major contributor, then come up with a solution involving spewing a substance not normally in the atmosphere to cool the planet as a solution. You people simply cant predict the outcome of that insanity and you would put the entire planet at risk over your half baked ideas and theories.
Not sure where you are getting all this CO1 stuff, you might want to crack open the warmist bible for a minute, you are about the first warmist I have seen claiming it is not CO2.
JamesDavis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure who your calling stupid but even the article itself references CO2, so I think maybe your the one in error here, by the way all gases are warming gases including oxygen.
You sure you want to go with such ridiculous comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo an ice age with miles thick ice that you warmists will cause with this idea is "respecting" the animals and plant life that would be wiped out? No you cant imagine a life with most of the landmass of earth covered in a glacier. But if you are actually goingf to imply humans can adapt to that easier than a balmy north pole, you go with that crazy nonsense, it is not even worth debating.
Yes it appears the planet has warmed since the 1980s. Sorry, that is not your models predicting it, as SA posted weeks ago, the model predicted warming did not happen so the computer models were rigged again to show the heat magically went into the deep ocean.
And to your first point, taking matters into our own hands? According to your warmist dogma, it was us humans meddling with the atmosphere that caused the warming, so how could you possibly conclude intentional meddling on a planetary scale would somehow be the solution?
Sure we can get rid of cars and oil and coal. Then we can watch 7 billion people chop down ever single tree so they can have cook fires, which also spew CO2 and heat and then plow under ever bit of land because we would need it all for food, since the efficiencies of using something like a tractor and irrigation would no longer be possible. So back to subsistence living and when 7 billion people are doing that, say hello to a reintroduction of raw sewage in rivers and who knows what former pollution problems will come back.
So yeah, lets do all that because that balmy north pole will just not work out and who wants to wait for the trees to clean out the CO2, we can do better than nature.
Yeah, scientists and their political backers have never come up with bad ideas and released them into the environment. Do we really need to list the nasty stuff the government and scientists have done in the past?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from that, are you warmists so arrogant that you actually believe you know enough about the atmosphere works, the oceans and land, every single plant, animal, insect and organism so perfectly you know for certainty this kind of goofing around with the planets biosphere would have no negative effects? Based on past claims of harmless ideas the likely outcome of this idea is going to be worse than just leaving everything as is. Worse case for CO2 warming is we humans die and the trees scrub the atmosphere clean. You have no idea what will happen if you throw billions of tons of sulfates into the atmosphere.
Global climate change has been proven, but it's the idiots (usually the ones who want to make money more than anything) are actually teaching against it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, priddseren, you are an idiot. We may be "warmists" (idiotic word), but you are burying your head in the sand in the worst way. Pretend the problem does not exist, and *poof* it doesn't. Where, exactly, are the rising sea levels coming from? Why are there more icebergs breaking off and floating away? Why is the polar bear's habitat decreasing at an enormous rate? Why are places suffering increasingly more severe drought while others are facing historic flooding? Contrary to the extreme right's efforts at uneducating this country (look at this article to see the extremes that some morons would go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder), the majority of scientists DO believe that global climate change is happening.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.T8l4qLWwVhw
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
Yes, the climate has gone through changes before, but never at this rate, and never when the environmental conditions didn't cause it.
And we're supposed to listen to the de-educated public on this topic? They don't care about pumping CO2, CFCs, and other toxic pollutants into the air, land, and water, and yet they're "concerned" about sulfates? Particles of teflon have been found EVERYWHERE, including in the fat of polar bears, thousands of miles from civilization, with untold health risks. And people whine about sulfates? It's hypocritical. We should just create a fake industry, dump as many sulfates as we want. After all, particulates in the air have NO effect on anything.
I'm to the point that I think humanity needs to be wiped out, and let the planet start over again with something MUCH smarter and MUCH less ego-centric, selfish, and self destructive.
Maybe cockroaches will do a better job.
Dump millions of tons of sulphates into the atmosphere, what will these Big Oil sycophants think of next, anyway & anything from Nutty SCAMs like Agro-fuels, CCS, Hydrogen Economy, Wind & Solar energy and now the latest addition pollute the atmosphere DELIBERATELY - all just to prevent & misdirect any resources or effort from the OBVIOUS - Build the damn Nukes, replace Fossil Fuels with Nuclear Energy, save $trillion in energy expenditure, solve the world economic crisis virtually overnight, put people back to work, no more Oil Wars, no more Terrorists funded by Oil & Gas purchases. Iran will go bankrupt and will barely be able to feed its own people never mind building WMD's and financing Terrorists around the World.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget Drill, Baby, Drill --- what America needs, what the World needs is BUILD, BABY, BUILD.
I was thinking of clicking "Report Abuse" but I decided that would be unfair as you probably would not understand what that word means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe skies turned white in Mid Europe for nearly two years after repeated eruptions of an Aleutian volcano - forgot the name - until 2010. Strangely enough nobody relates this event to the fact that it did help cool the planet. It is also neglected that now Japanese HINODE rsearchers find the sun will be cooling down itself - and the earth - by reducing activity in the northern solar half by possibly duplicating her inverting polarity, and that a possible new Maunder cycle on earth could be lurking. There seems to be an unknown lobby for solar warming protectionists, to fuel alarming scenarios and finding faults with earthlings while nature has its own course. Earth herself reacts by warming her surface from inside, with increased underwater eruptions warming the atmosphere up to melting icebergs. The interreactions of sun, moon, earth and earthlings is incredibly intricate and researches at best onesided and never exhaustive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, "priddseren", we do know what will happen in the long term if we pump billions on tons of sulfates into the atmosphere. The same as we know what is happening since we are already pumping billions on tons of CO1 (carbon monoxide from burning fossil fuels) into the atmosphere. All the soot in fossil fuel smoke that is swirling around in our atmosphere is collecting the Sun's heat and warming up our air at an alarming rate. The Sulfates will reflect the Sun's heat back into space and produce a cooler atmosphere at an alarming rate. Pumping billions of tons of sulfates into the atmosphere will have the opposite effect as pumping billions of tons of soot into our atmosphere...that is going from the fire back into the fire. We don't have to pump billions of tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, but what we do have to start doing is eliminating the use of fossil fuel, and that is not going to plunge us back into the stone age. We can produce all the electricity we need by -to quote "dwbd" above, "build baby build". Geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, and ocean wave and river current can produce all the electricity we need. One geothermal power plant with 20 turbines can produce more electricity than 4 nuclear power plants and cost as much to build as one nuclear power plant. That geothermal power plant can produce enough electricity to power 170 million homes and businesses, and the 1% polluting brine from the plant that is rich in minerals can be extracted and sold; paying for the plant's construction. Before you say anything, I already gave you the link showing that fact. The clean energy plants will allow our atmosphere to clean its self up in about the same amount of time it took us to dirty it up by burning fossil fuel. It makes me feel good when you call me a "warmist (sic)", because I am an avid tree and plant huger, and I have a masters in herbal medicine to prove that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet to it I'm tired of blue-! Any color but...blue-!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too have often pondered using the 'Report Abuse' button, but in the absence of any house rules it is hard to know what SciAm considers abuse. (It occurred to me briefly that maybe SciAm's advertising rates are linked to the number of comments posted!) It is disappointing, not mention tiresome, to see the same patterns of insult and retaliation every time an article on climate appears. Indeed, it seems that some folks hover around the site just waiting for the opportunity to make a disparaging comment. (One wonders why they find this a productive use of their time.) SciAm is in danger of sinking to the level of tabloid journalism - some would say it already has. For the scientifically serious, there are plenty of other sites where there are clear rules about what is acceptable, and ad hominem attacks are not tolerated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs anyone at SciAm listening?
Gord: Just to clarify, I was not criticizing your comment, which in itself was entirely understandable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a pity that our species can't simply discipline itself to bring down our population and understand the basic principles of ecology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the now enormous human population is a critical factor in all equations determining our impact on the global environment, but is is also crucial to increasing economic market opportunities and tax revenues... How often do government administrators intentionally reduce tax revenues?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, unless effective action is taken to reduce the population we will at some point exceed the stable carrying capacity of the Earth's systems - producing collapse. Please see "Generic Indicators for Loss of Resilience Before a Tipping Point Leading to Population Collapse", http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6085/1175
I can understand those who don't believe in AGW to be against such a program. It's the ones who do understand what's at stake that amaze me. The ever rising level of CO2 and therefore temperature means the end of the world as we know it but certainly not a actual practical answer like going nuclear or some geo-engineering. Only fairy tale ideas like solar or wind will be allowed. Its hard to take people like that seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, except that I have no confidence that the 'responsible parties' can cooperatively implement a successful geological engineering solution. Perhaps such attempts would more likely inadvertently address overpopulation issues...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if global warming were temporarily abated by the continuous injection of particulates into the atmosphere without producing unexpected catastrophic secondary effects, it would hardly address the problems of overpopulation, depletion of resources, and even the continued environmental contamination.
I strongly suggest that the 'responsible parties' focus instead on the political issues involved in the global management of population. If that could possibly be addressed we'd have a better chance of dealing with secondary issues...
I oppose geoengineering because of the law of unintended consequences -- in other words, that something will happen we don't expect. We only have one planet, and if something goes disastrously wrong with the geoengineering we will be in very big trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, just no. I don't care if the world goes to h3ll in a handbasket, DO NOT GET RID OF BLUE SKIES! Plant gardens on every rooftop in every city, put reflective blankets over glaciers, build giant heat sinks and stick them in the ocean, invest in carbon capturing but do not mess with something as beautiful as a blue sky! It's bad enough that we can't even see the stars any more in some areas why take away this too!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr we could just replace Fossil Fuels with Nuclear Power, no real problem except Big Carbon has unlimited funding to buy EVERYBODY, ENGO's like Greenpeace & the Sierra Club, Politicians, bureaucracies like the NRC & Mass Media (there are only four major media conglomerates left). Big Carbon knows very well that Nuclear can kick their butts in a level playing field, so they just can't allow that to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to be the one to break the news but it is your warmist buddies like Al Gore and everyone else with huge financial investments in your so called green solutions to solve global warming. And lets not forget all your liberal politicians who are planning to line their pockets with the carbon tax and carbon permitting schemes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo yeah, when you follow the money it seems pretty obvious why such a load of nonsense is being promoted.
I never said there was no global warming, nor even that it is not human caused. I challenge this shockingly limited focus on blaming only CO2 and then declaring CO2 a pollutant, the one molecule that starts the entire chain of life because without CO2, their would be no plants and without those, no oxygen and no carbon for food or to sort of maintain carbon based life.
Go on and spout your total statistical results at me, more ice bergs compared to when, higher sea level compared to when? There were ice ages in the past, which presumably had a heck of a lot more ice bergs when it ended and since the planet has been far warmer than any of your so called predictions, the sea level has been higher.
Bottom line is you are the one with your head in the sand. Or I should say in the computer monitor of your fantasy planet created by computer models.
Statistical information is interesting but NOT a fact. Especially, when you are averaging and using such limited data.
Your warmist theories cant even stand the simplest of logic and your predictions of what happens if the planet does warm is even more insane.
BUT unlike you people, I will at least give enough doubt to at least call the warmist theory plausible. YOU will not consider you are wrong, instead you keep changing your model to explain away its failed predictions.
And even if I am wrong, doing what is suggested in this article is insane. The fact you warmists can even consider re-engineering the biosphere is just crazy. Besides being completely hypocritical of your stance on evil humans affecting the atmosphere, since you people don't really know what is going on(note clouds were not even part of your model until a few weeks ago) or if your warming is correct, you still dont know enough about how the planet works to go around pumping the air full of sulphates. The fact you can consider this insanity indicates your warmist theory is likely also wrong.
I see, so having an opinion is abuse. Well at least you follow the socialist mind really well, suppress anyone who does not follow the consensus or what the government wants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow this comment I can agree with. There is no way the people who would be in charge of this could be trusted with it, even if it was plausible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe population is the problem. I totally agree. Not because of CO2 but just because of all the Heat humans and their activities create, which is more than enough to warm the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT there is not going to be some sort of population control. 7 Billion people most of which are reproducing at a rate to keep increasing will just keep doing that. Any attempt to prevent this is simply not going to work unless you plan to totally remove the rights of free people and start exterminating people. Or worse, implement some sort of socialist progressive eugenics plan to give some the privilege of living to some and the rest cant reproduce or will get killed off after a certain age.
No practical way to control population. The population will only cap and stop growing when we can't produce enough food to feed it.
Best to mitigate for the population.
I agree that if population growth is not moderated by some deterministic means it will be eventually be reduced catastrophically. I simply wish that it would be effectively addressed in some way that minimizes human suffering. Not addressing the problem will produce enormous suffering...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are of course right about geo engineering, it is silly to pump chemicals into the atmosphere to effect a change. We have been doing it for over a century, and it has caused change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, like all the climate skeptics, you are in complete denial of the facts. You offer, as do all climate skeptics I have encountered, not a shred of evidence that there is not global warming, and that the burning of 50 million years of accumulated fossil fuel in a mere 100 or so years doesn't have an effect. Yes, climate change has occurred naturally over the history of the earth, but the speed which it is occurring now is dramatic.
Priddseren, do you think that we can burn 1000 barrels of oil a second, every minute of every day of every year, while at the same time reducing plankton and vegetative cover (that is the prime way of separating O2 from molecular bonds of C) and NOT have an appreciable effect on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
The "theory" about warming caused by CO2, was proven scientifically, and peer reviewed in ... wait for it ... 1859 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/). So far I haven't seen any of your "flat earth" friends refute Tyndall's work in any scientific way. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been measured carefully since 1974, and these measurements coincide with what would be expected from the combustion of huge quantities oil, coal and gas. One can calculate the CO2 generated from the fossil fuels we have burned.
Care to present any peer reviewed scientific evidence? I didn't think so.
Actually, if we really cared about the environment so much then we would stop the spraying of chemtrails in the sky (geoengineering). Never heard of chemtrails? Well, its a military black project hidden under the guise of ecology that is responsible for spraying megatons of nano particles of aluminum and barium salts into the sky. It initially looks like a jet contrail but then slowly spreads out into a white film covering the sky; whereas a true jet contrail dissipates after ten minutes. The chemtrails are suppose to “stop the suns rays from hitting the earth”.lol. Just watch this documentary called WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARt9ccu8no&feature=fvst
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is, it destroys crops, animals, water supplies, etc. Here is where it gets maniacal. When you dump tons of aluminium into soil, you raise the PH which kills the plants. But don’t worry! Monsanto has a patented seed for that! Only downside is the fruits don’t seed so your always stuck paying for GMO seeds. Sick.
Not only that but dumping megatons of aluminium into the atmosphere acts as a catalyst for HAARP. This is the military application. HAARP is an assortment of massive Tesla Coils that are responsible for beaming billions of watts of directional electromagnetic waves. Whats the big deal? Well, when the electromagnetic waves hit the aluminum suspended in the atmosphere, it produces serious heat. Enough heat to raise the ionosphere and which allows the user of the directional microwaves to manufacture the jet stream. Basically you control the weather. VERY BAD. Produce rain in the desert, etc. Whats worse, well you can beam 30 watts of electromagnetic waves into the ground to find oil/gas deposits. Now what happens when you beam BILLIONS of watts into the earth? You get earthquakes, artificially induced volcanoes, etc.
Don’t believe me? Would you believe the secretary of defense?
Here is a press release from the Dept. Of Defense.
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=674
Secretary of Defense Cohen says "…Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
Did I just hear a light bulb explode in your head? Yes, I did. Consider yourself WOKEN UP. Now go wake up the flock up.
Ron Paul 2012.
You alarmist left wing nincompoops are so naive. Here's an article published bay another of your Godheads James Hansen of GISS totally contradicting his present obsession with CO2. In this article he states that man-made CO2 is no big deal. I guess it wasn't a big deal until he figured out how he could spin it into fame and fortune.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/03/shocker-the-hansengiss-team-paper-that-says-we-argue-that-rapid-warming-in-recent-decades-has-been-driven-mainly-by-non-co2-greenhouse-gases/
Alarmists = pansies for the eco-corporations. Suckers!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the satellites monitoring warming are imaginary? And the ice core data is imaginary? And all the ground stations are imaginary? The ocean temperature buoys are imaginary? And the ocean acidification monitors are imaginary? And the arctic ice cap hasn't actually melted allowing container traffic through? And the rock strata data is imaginary? And the thousands of scientists who have worked in this field all get together in a evil volcano lair to plot their evil conspiracy?
Oh but CO2 is "natural" so 500 billion gigatons released by people can't be harmful... That's really the best argument you can come up with? This is a science website. At least put some effort into your moronic conspiracy theory.
No,the data aren't imaginary. They just show that nothing out of the ordinary is occurring. Earth warms, then Earth cools. The climate changes, naturally, strangely, without the intervention of man. Who would have thought that possible??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is happening. I know it's a big disappointment to all of you with a vested interest in a coming apocalypse, but the forecast is... sunny, windy, rainy and fine. Same as it ever was.
And the Arctic ice cap melting? Tanker traffic? Are you on crack or meth? The ice cap is not melting. Actually, I'm looking out the window at the Arctic Ocean right now and it is one big skating rink. More garbage from you Alarmists.
Rock data shows that the climate has changed vastly more over geological time than even the Alarmists freak out about. CO2 contents 3-4X higher in the past merely caused an explosion plant life, not the destruction of the planet. More ideological CO2 clap-trap along the lines of "Reefer Madness".
Ocean acidification claims are also garbage. The natural pH variation is the ocean's waters is many times greater than the purported changes that these ideologically driven researchers have found. Again, no story here when you dig into it.
So what is your data that shows that 500 gigatons of CO2 is harmful? It is a big, impressive, scary sounding number, but are there any data to show that any real bad things are happening, such as eco-refugees? Do real eco-regugees even exist? Any eco-refugees other than those forcibly evicted after having their homes burnt by the WWF so that the WWF could implement its agenda of eco-colonialism and eco-imperialism in Africa? You thought the Germans, French, Dutch and Belgians made a mess of Africa? Wait until the Eco-corporations are done with their colonial-imperialsm strategies.
Face it; the eco movement is lost and careening like a drunk walking down the street looking for another bottle of Red Ripple. It's abandoned it's core values in a blatant $$ grab and now it's abandoning CO2 and trying to whip up other imaginary issues into causes celebre. Why? Because only a marketable crisis will allow them to pay the nut on the vast overhead and infrastructure that they built. They need huge causes to raise huge $$$. Cleaning a local river so kids can swim in it is meaningless to them now.
You better catch up with them; they've changed Alarms on you. Didn't you get the Tweet?
So creating acid rain now is a good idea for 31% of responders? The US spend decades trying to get sulfur OUT of our emissions. What about the other detriments such as sulfur decreasing ocean pH; and the very corrosive nature of sulfur in destroying metal? How much more resources would we have to consume just to replace everything that corroded much faster?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho paid for Carnegie's study? Please tell us it wasn't taxpayers. And why doesn't Scientific America provide counter points? In the 2012 novel, The Carbon Trap, biological lifeforms are genetically modified to increase CO2 absorption and sequestration. They get out of control and threaten all life on Earth. It shows man's arrogance to throw solutions at problems that don't really exist.
The most damaging effect of blocking the sun will be retarding the growth of vegetables, i.e. food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMajor American cities? Are you kidding me??? I live on a rural Canadian Island (Cortes), population 1000, and we see the skies whited out on a regular basis with so-called "persistent jet contrails". No major cities nearby. Geoengineering has been done covertly for about 2 decades in all NATO countries, with ZERO public input or consent. I actually moved from a military town (Courtenay/Comox BC) because the geoengineering, aka. "chemtrails" were nonstop and making myself and my little girl sick. Thought moving to a more remote locale might = less "chemtrails". Hardly! See the documentary "What In The World Are They Spraying?". Geoengineering is ALREADY wreaking havoc on human health and the environment. Also see "Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement", which will give you some insight into the real reason we are being sprayed like insects, which has nothing to do with "global warming". Both films can be viewed free on YouTube. Geoengineers have admitted to spending millions on keeping the public in the dark about geoengineering (Google "millions spent to confuse public about geoengineering") and you know what they want to keep you confused about, specifically? For one, the fact that this has been going on, and causing massive damage to us and the planet for decades! Look up and WAKE the F* up, before it's too late!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease see "What In The World Are They Spraying?" (it's on YouTube). Geoengineering IS having a negative impact on plant growth, not so much due to the global dimming effect but because of the effects the toxic substances (such as aluminum, barium, strontium) are having on soil PH. Why do you think Monsanto has recently come out with aluminum resistant seeds? Actually, geoengineers would have us believe aerosol geoengineering (aka. "chemtrails") will increase plant growth. Next they'll be telling us that breathing nano-sized metal particulates make us smarter and strengthen our immune systems!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the documentary "What In The World Are They Spraying?". Also Google "millions spent to confuse public about geoengineering". One of the things they want us confused about is the fact that it ain't just sulfates they're spraying. They also don't want you to know that they've been doing this for about 2 decades behind our backs and it is wreaking havoc on human health and the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe green agenda (not to be confused with legitimate environmentalism) has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with establishing global government (a New World Order). "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." -Club of Rome, (which Al Gore just happens to be a member and former chairman!) - The First Global Revolution.
To gain insight into some of the real reasons we are being sprayed like insects, I highly recommend the film "Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement". Both films I've mentioned can be viewed on YouTube.
Can you say "Barium, Strontium, and Aluminum"...in one breath? Probably not after being chemtrailed! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the warning label of Triethlyaluminum BEFORE anything else is added. It's being sprayed above our heads continually now...
http://www.kipnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Trimethylaluminum-tma_epichem.pdf
Two great movies by Michael Murphy on this subject. Must sees!
What in the World Are They Spraying?
http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA
Sequel: Why in the World Are They Spraying? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3__ssxTvNc
You are a fool. Greenhouse gases and the rest of the Al Gore rhetoric is fabricated and B.S. CO2 is not ruining our atmosphere, HAARP is ruining our atmosphere. Aluminum, Barium and Strontium are what they spray into the sky, and yes it is very bad for all living things, No, they aren't going to tell you that, because they aren't doing it to cool the planet, it's a a big hoax. They are doing it to reduce the population. These are extremely dangerous toxins, and they aren't thinking about doing it, it's being done all over the world. Wake up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you believe it why? Because they told you so? Here's a question for you. Why would people who believe the planet is warming and are truely worried about it purposely rip huge holes in the ionosphere? The ionosphere and the magnetosphere protect the earth from the suns radiation. If you rip holes in them, massive radiation comes thru. These morons who preach global warming ARE causing it by tearing apart our atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a fact. I helped build the thing. Every time they generate plasma, they rip HUGE holes in the ionosphere. This is one of hundreds. Please read:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B20g6HTWqzPoNjQxMzcwNTEtZTFjMC00NmEwLThkNmMtNzM1ODA4ZGQ2YjY0
Its not nice to play with Mother Nature. Is nitrogen heating? Why doesn't everybody sit back and really do a scientific study. Remember, what goes up, does comes down. Lace the air with whatever and you and everything else breathes it as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsk your Doctor.
yeah lets convert our automobiles to electric... so where do we get the electric from that would charge the batteries in these converted automobiles? Do you know the size of the converter that would be needed to have a solar powered car? Ok how about wind powered... hmmm that doesnt seem feasible either... ok so lets scrap the automobile and go back to horses.. oh wait, cant do that cause their poop causes global warming and PETA would be all over us... Seems like to me that our Auto industry has been so heavily regulated to conform to stringent emission dictates that we now have nearly zero emission gas powered cars... this seems like the best direction to me... now lets start and provide for our own energy needs instead of spending trillions of our dollars financing hostile countries that really dislike us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah lets convert our automobiles to electric... so where do we get the electric from that would charge the batteries in these converted automobiles? Do you know the size of the converter that would be needed to have a solar powered car? Ok how about wind powered... hmmm that doesnt seem feasible either... ok so lets scrap the automobile and go back to horses.. oh wait, cant do that cause their poop causes global warming and PETA would be all over us... Seems like to me that our Auto industry has been so heavily regulated to conform to stringent emission dictates that we now have nearly zero emission gas powered cars... this seems like the best direction to me... now lets start and provide for our own energy needs instead of spending trillions of our dollars financing hostile countries that really dislike us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTurning skies white would be the least of our worries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do believe that the most effective geo-engineering to halt near term ice loss, a result of a global warming, would be global shading. Having said this, to think that we can engineer a solution to global warming in some sort of controlled fashion is hubris, something with which humanity is well endowed.
No good would come of this effort.
I've worked in manufacturing my entire life.The desired state for any manufacturing system or process is "in control and in spec". When a process begins to drift due to some shift in an input, you will find yourself "in control but out of spec". If you have a great deal of process knowledge and can identify the input that has changed, you can bring this input back to it's desired value and arrive back to "in control and in spec".
If the changed input cannot be brought back to its original values one possible solution does exist.If you have a detailed and accurate process model that addresses all known inputs and their relations to each other, than adjusting other inputs can bring a process back to "in control and in spec." This is a lot easier than it sounds and engineers get paid big money to acquire this level of process knowledge. Without this knowledge, simply monkeying with the system or process will quickly deliver you to "out of control, out of spec". We do not have the requisite climate process knowledge to engineer a solution. Monkeying with the process would be a disaster.
It appears this program has already started. The skies in Orange County started appearing this white color several weeks ago and have stayed that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this