Teller's hubris knew no bounds. He was the [self-proclaimed] father of the H-bomb and promoted all things atomic, even talking about using nuclear weapons to create canals and harbors. He was also an advocate of urban sprawl to survive nuclear attack, the Star Wars [missile] defense system, and a planetary sunscreen to reduce global warming. He wanted to control nature and improve it using technology.
Throughout history rainmakers and climate engineers have typically fallen into two categories: commercial charlatans using technical language and proprietary techniques to cash in on a gullible public, and sincere but deluded scientific practitioners exhibiting a modicum of chemical and physical knowledge, a bare minimum of atmospheric insight, and an abundance of hubris. We should base our decision-making not on what we think we can do "now" and in the near future. Rather, our knowledge is shaped by what we have and have not done in the past. Such are the grounds for making informed decisions and avoiding the pitfalls of rushing forward, claiming we know how to "fix the sky."
See what we're tweeting about
64 Comments
Add CommentGlobal Warming vs Climate Variation vs Aquifer Depletion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy thought is that, it is possible, we are in the midst of human induced "global warming" at the same time as natural "climate variation" is warming up the planet for a double wammy. Conservation, by itself, will not be enough. It is prudent that governments around the world employ an arsenal of programs to meet the potential impact of the melting of the polar ice caps. This would include solar power, wind power, tidal power, nuclear power, limits on fossil fuels and limits on population growth.
It would also include river diversion!
At the same time, it is being reported that, around the world, aquifers are being depleted to meet the needs agriculture for the growing human population. I have never read, in any study relating the models used to predict the rise in sea levels due to the melting of the ice caps, the possibility of diverting rivers from flowing into the oceans to flow into the interior so that sea levels will not rise as quickly.
From the engineering point of view, how much water in the past has been diverted from flowing to the oceans and what is the corresponding impact on sea levels? We should not try to argue whether water diversion is good or bad. Just the facts please! Is it one inch or one foot or ten feet? What is the total capacity of all the aquifers around the world to absorb water and relate that to sea levels? Will it make a difference? From an engineering point of view, even if you find that the impact on sea levels in not that great, it would be important because it answers a question that has not been asked before. From the political point of view, you can still discuss the politics of diversion of rivers that cross borders.
Replenishing aquifers would be a great boon to agriculture around the world, not only in developed countries, but especially in developing countries to meet the needs of expanding populations.
From the political point of view, who stands to gain and who stands to lose from diverting rivers from the ocean? From an engineering point of view, what impact will it have on the environment? A few years ago, I read that diverting the largest river which flows into Hudson's Bay would eliminate the annual winter freezing, because fresh water floats on salt water and icebergs form. With no fresh water flowing into Hudson's Bay, it would be ice free all year and huge new fishery would be created to feed the world. Why hasn't this even been considered at the political level? Could Canada claim that fishery is in Canadian waters and limit it to Canadian companies? Would other countries object?
Forty years ago, an American plan (NAWAPA) was proposed to divert the mighty Canadian Mackenzie River, which flows into the Arctic Ocean, south to the United States to replenish the huge Ogallala aquifer. (Arctic wild idea preserved - http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=11874 ).
All Canadians thought that the plan was nuts! Americans can't steal our water. We would rather piss it into the ocean. What would have been the impact on ocean levels if this plan had been approved 40 years ago? Politically, why was there opposition to the plan, and would there be the same opposition today?
There are also plans to divert Russian rivers that flow into the Arctic so they can irrigate Central Asia and replenish the Aral Sea. Russian nationalists oppose this plan.(Arctic to Aral - http://ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=378)
The question that I would like answered is this:
Do these models of rising sea levels address the possibility of diverting rivers that flow into the oceans so that they can irrigate deserts, steppes, and replenish the aquifers that are currently being depleted? If they don't, then it indicates a bias that climate researchers have against engineering our way out of the impending global warming crisis in favour of a passive conservation approach.
Below is an example of the mindset of researchers in the field of global warming and water deficits. No mention of large scale river diversions
WATER DEFICITS GROWING IN MANY COUNTRIES
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/080902_water_shortages.htm
"The two keys to stabilising aquifers are raising water prices and stabilising population. The first step is to eliminate the pervasive subsidies that create artificially low prices for water in so many countries. The next is to raise water prices to the point where they will reduce pumping to a sustainable level by raising water productivity and reducing water use in all segments of society. Low-income urban consumers can be protected with "lifeline rates" that provide for basic needs at an affordable price. Prices of underground water can be raised by installing meters on pumps and charging for water as Mexico has done or by auctioning permits to operate wells. Either way, water prices rise. "
"Can geoengineering etc...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO.
Let me repeat that again for you slow learners: NO!
A roomful of Einsteins working on the problem could not save the planet from the devastating effects that have been unleashed by none other than the same group of fools who brought us all to this precipice.
Here's the question: What engineering marvels of this age will survive in legend to be the 'Wonders of the Ancient World' in the far future?
You all talk about BIG projects to forestall global warming. What about the individual use of energy? What life style are you willing to give up? Here are some:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrive only for absolute necessity to save fuel polution.
Open windows - no airconditioning.
Wear lots of warm clothes, plus overcoat indoors in winter.
Fewer baths, restrict hot water use.
NO? You don't like it. OK - where do you start then?
Global Homo sapien population is the problem. Nothing you do now can save anything, we have fatally damaged the biosphere. The sixth extinction will run its course and after the biosphere recovers life will return, based on what happened after the five previous extinctions, it might be better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there was any saving to do, population controls should have been been introduced in the 1960s at the very latest.
The most likely results of large scale geoengineering efforts are unintended and unpredictable. Since we do not fully understand the processes that produce the complex climatic system, there is little that could be done to affect them without producing unintended and unexpected results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn short, any large scale geoengineering effort would likely be exceedingly dangerous; attempting multiple concurrent or serial geoengineering projects would almost certainly produce catastrophic results.
According to Census Bureau estimates, since the global population reached 1 billion for the first time ever around 200 years ago, it has increased by 590%, to 6.9 billion. The increasing per capital production and environmental release of GHGs by the increasing percentage of the population living in modern urban areas is producing an algebraic effect of the rate of human environmental impact and its accumulating effects.
The combination of increasing total population and increasing percentile environmental impacts conspire to produce conditions that are beyond the influence of conservation measures to control.
For these reasons I think that only a highly focused engineering effort to directly and safely affect only the factors producing global warming must be undertaken.
It is currently most generally understood that human GHG atmospheric emissions are the principal cause of global warming. Assuming that is the case, the only effective method of reducing global warming would be to directly reduce the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Safety and reliability must be of utmost concern, since any catastrophic failure of such a system would likely produce devastating consequences.
The most effective conservation method would be to immediately suspend the extension of all modern infrastructure support to new segments of the global population, particularly the construction of large scale electrical generators and other new industrial facilities that produce GHGs. While this may seem unfair to those who would most directly benefit, continuation of current industrial expansion risks the survival of all.
Lastly, global population growth must be curtailed ASAP. While this also seems unfair in some way, with a post-industrial population that is nearly 10 times as large as preindustrial levels and a 30% increase by 2050 being predicted by the Census Bureau, there is no alternative that can prevent an otherwise unavoidable increase in human environmental impact. Most likely, humanity has already expanded beyond the point of no return...
NO!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur lovely earth where we have somehow found our existence in, is not a laboratory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the moment, the core of our discussions should be re-defining the human activities/existence in nature. It is obvious that romantic democracy system, which puts the humanity over everything has eventually failed. We need an amendmend in Constitution with following clauses:
1- Nature has absolute sovereignty and has the right to sustain.
2- Every person has the right to defend the “Rights of Nature” in Courts.
3- Waste producing human activities (including urbanization) can only be allowed if waste stabilization can be achieved in 20 years maximum(that is less than one human generation life time).
Not all proposed cures run the risk of being worse than the disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, the following would be benign and reversible, IMHO. And also affordable:
Oil tankers loaded with raw material and lines for the mass-production of those light, shiny plastic globes we are more used to seeing on Christmas trees could spread billions of them per day over the ocean surface, especially near the poles, significantly reducing the albedo. (Conveniently, ocean currents in polar regions tend to be towards the poles, preventing too much dispersion in those areas.)
Six such tankers would have the capacity to completely cover an area the size of the Gulf of Mexico - needless to say, such dense coverage would be unnecessary.
Sea life would be unnaffected.
The material would be chosen to degrade after a year, or any appropriate time period, to avoid coastal pollution and the increase in reflectivity from potentially working too well. ‘Six-month’ globes for a start, followed by ‘one-year’ or even ‘five-year’ ones.
The operation could begin as soon as a study determined the global quantity and distribution required to avoid too rapid an effect. Within a year, perhaps. A pilot scheme even sooner.
This be no substitute for greenhouse gas reduction, but would give a needed breathing space for other conservation measures to take effect.
Other schemes, even if workable, have the risk of causing irreversible effects even worse than the problems they address. In contrast, the suggestion I am making could be piloted on any scale, with the globes having a built-in lifespan before safely degrading.
An interesting idea and, critically, feasibly reversible as you point out. I always have to play the devil's advocate...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm no expert, but would atmospheric co2 absorb thermal radiation reflected from the surface?
Wouldn't blocking sunlight from the ocean disrupt the ability of phytoplankton to photosynthesize energy?
There are a few other potential issues, particularly the potential effect of ocean currents on redistributing the floating objects: they might all end up on a beach in Chile...
Creative and constructive thinking. As an old curmudgeon, I've found that things are always more difficult and complicated than they seem. Perhaps I'm wrong...
Geoengineering is a crazy idea, not least because even IF it were feasible, and safe, slowing climate change will do nothing to abate two other even more urgent threat to all forms of life:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. ocean acidification from CO2
2. inexorably rising levels of tropospheric ozone, which is formed from the emissions of the "other" greenhouse gases. Ozone is toxic and causes cancer, emphysema and asthma, but ultimately it is an existential threat to all humanity because it is even more poisonous to vegetation, which happens to be the base of the food chain. Ozone interferes with the ability of plants to photosynthesize, thus annual crop yields are stunted and lose quality all over the world. Estimates of losses range into many billions of dollars annually. Worse, trees and shrubs that are exposed season after season are dying at a rapidly accelerating rate.
We should start conserving fuel and reserve its use for only the most essential purposes.
photographs and links to scientific research here:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/02/rude-awakening.html
How do you make a river flow uphill and where will you keep all the water? Also what are you smoking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reflected thermal radiation should be the same temperature as the incoming. If it can get in, it can get out!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe plankton etc would be pretty well unaffected, as the needed coverage would be less than 50%, probably less than 25%.
I must say I'm mainly concerned about the ice caps, but the things could be spread elsewhere, if studies showed it was appropriate.
As for them all ending up on a beach in Chile, lol, I'm kind of optimistic about that, too. Ocean currents are slow, and in any case tend to be pole-wards in polar regions. The objects would be timed to degrade well before hitting land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome time on one of those expensive climate modelling computers could determine if it's feasible. I think it would be worth it.
Anyway, it would be easier to put a few million near the North or South pole and see what happened.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd have thought that the government of, say, Greenland would have an interest in spending a small amount of money on a test.
Graham, many years ago, I made an engineering advance that made me world famous in the field for a few years. Because of that success & others, ever since I have been approached by budding inventors to give an opinion on the workability of different ideas. The vast majority are not workable, often for fairly glaringly obvious reasons. What I try to do in such cases is to steer the person concerned in a direction that encourages them to learn more about the physics of the problem so they reach a greater understanding. It can be difficult to let go of an idea. Often simple experiments can show the viability or otherwise of an idea. In your case perhaps a bag of table tennis balls in a pond would help to show you some of the difficulties. Do not give up on trying to think of solutions to problems though. It is a great educator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCitation from link proposed by ConcernedCitizen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable."
We know so little about our planet yet, so please stop trying to influence the processes we do not understand.
Increase of global temperature can be nasty.
Decrease will be disastrous.
Thanks for the encouragement, but I don't have a bag of table tennis balls - what would you expect to see?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere have been many cases where a number of bottles containing messages have been cast into the ocean alongside each other & have subsequently been found on the beaches of different continents. In a pond you would only have wind to disperse the balls. In the ocean there are also tides & currents. If you observe just about anything that has been in the ocean for an extended length of time you will find marine growth attached. If the balls accumulated near a shore there would be abrasion of their surfaces. On reflectivity, a sphere reflects in all directions on the reciprocal angle of the light striking it so radiation would mostly be directed into the waves in an ocean. Light would further be dispersed by the water on the surface of the balls. There are many other problems I am afraid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards, Carlyle.
There is a geoengineering project which has begun to be implemented. (See www.eprida.com) 'Biomass pyrolysis' is a technique(See wikipedia), where plants capture CO2 which ends up as 'biochar', (charcoal), which is put into dry soils to improve their water retention and hence fertility. Thus CO2 is sequesterd permanently, thereby removing greenhouse gas and effectively geo-engineering the climate. It is only a question of time before the industry is adopted worldwide, as it is simple, safe and economical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis unfortunately is another red herring to get the rural sector on side. Look at this longer term. If you do this for a long term you end up with a solid bed of charcoal. Go somewhere with deep soil on a flood plain & dig a hole. You will find small pieces of charcoal. Never thick beds of it. Also to bury your charcoal you have to plough it in. Next time you plough it in you turn up a large proportion of what you previously buried. Subsequent ploughings even more. Also, farmers are trying to move to minimal ploughing where the soil only has the very surface disturbed. For very good ecological reasons. Other forums are advocating the ceasing of burning stubble & things like cane fields to remove the grasses & weeds prior to harvesting. Mixed messages I would suggest. Burning of cane fields followed by ploughing has been practiced in many parts of the world for generations. You do not find big build up of charcoal there either. Perhaps researchers should find out where it goes from sites like this before more of our billions are wasted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if we attained practical fusion as energy source, the course would probably accelerate itself. The key question is : how much energy can we introduce in a system before it collapses?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of staring challenges right in the eyes, we are on an escapist fugue in futurism.
The Challenger disaster could have been avoided with 500$ worth of hardware.
The means are there. There are not enough people to maintain the dots connected. Those in institutional powers to be stomp creative solutions because they are too low tech for them.
It was a tuner club that made a Hummer run 100 miles on a gallon not the company engineers. same was true with the Wright Brothers.
It never changes.
Even if we attained practical fusion as energy source, the course would probably accelerate itself. The key question is : how much energy can we introduce in a system before it collapses?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of staring challenges right in the eyes, we are on an escapist fugue in futurism.
The Challenger disaster could have been avoided with 500$ worth of hardware.
The means are there. There are not enough people to maintain the dots connected. Those in institutional powers to be stomp creative solutions because they are too low tech for them.
It was a tuner club that made a Hummer run 100 miles on a gallon not the company engineers. same was true with the Wright Brothers.
...
Geoengineering is not science fiction. We already geoengineered the world. We have increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm in 1750 to 390 ppm today. Many believe this is the cause of global warming. We did that by burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles, destroying forests thru logging, mining and land development, and just shear overpopulation. Each person exhales 200,000 liters of CO2 a yr. x 6.8 billion population is 1,365 trillion liters of CO2 a yr.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan geoengineering save the world from global warming? Assuming it's bad, yes by reversing what we did. Stop burning fossil fuels and convert to nuclear and renewable energies, stop destroying forests and do reforestation, stop making babies and control world population.
What's "subsequently", or "an extended length of time"? The globes would degrade in a year or so, well before they could spread too far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the unlikely event that marine growth tended to colonise them in that time, a material might be used that delayed that for long enough.
I don't see abrasion as being a big problem - if they all immediately pile up on the nearest beach, we can forget the idea anyway.
Reflectivity I would say would be fine, at least until an experimental scheme has shown that it isn't. Apparently 60% of incident sunlight gets absorbed, which is quite a lot. We wouldn't need or want to reduce that by TOO much.
I agree with your account but is it a problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(We have increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm in 1750 to 390 ppm today.)
Just let us consider what ppm means. Parts per million. Most people do not have any conception what a million is. If we relate it to a unit of distance & substitute metres for matter, we would have 280 metres increasing to 390 metres out of every 1000 kilometres. (600 miles) If the CO2 really has increased by 110 ppm what kind of poison would it have to be to give the effect being attributed to it? Imagine there was one gallon per metre along this track. You would have 390 gallons of your poison (about ten 40 gallon drums) mixed with 999600 gallons (twenty four thousand nine hundred & ninety drums of all the other gasses) Of that mankind is accused of adding just 110 gallons or less than three drums on this scale. 110 metres in a thousand kilometres. Is this really credible for an essential plant food to be so toxic on this scale or even double this scale. Methinks not. Work it out in days & years, 390 days out of two thousand seven hundred & thirty eight years.
Obviously, the issue is not the toxicity of atmospheric levels of poisonous co2 ingested by humans: the assertion, at least, is that increasing atmospheric co2 levels are trapping thermal energy that would otherwise radiate into space, producing global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an aside, reportedly some people do not realize their quiet car is still running when they leave it in the garage at night and have actually been killed as a result. The concentrated byproducts of combustion are poisonous - be careful.
I know what the claim is. My point was to illustrate the degree of dilution in 110 parts per million. Compared to water vapour & other substances it is just not credible that the increase is responsible for the claimed above average global temperature increase. As I am sure you are aware, it is CO4 that causes death in the garage situation, though sufficiently high CO2 would also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI generally don't disagree with your assessment, except that I doubt we have enough time for your suggestions to produce the results required.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe experimental geoengineering of the environment over the past 200 years or so has been uncontrolled and largely unintentional. It's not at all likely that humanity could have intentionally produced even those same results with any controlled geoengineering program. How can human activity be reliably controlled?
As I understand, even if humanity suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth it would take decades if not centuries for current atmospheric GHGs to return to preindustrialized levels.
That's not to say that there's no need to change anything, but we should not put our resources into only marginally effective measures while thinking that we have addressed the problem.
IMO, if human GHG emissions are producing global warming the only effective measure that could be undertaken, to prevent the continuation of global warming already underway, is to somehow safely and directly reduce atmospheric GHG levels.
I don't know of any safe and reliable method of reducing atmospheric GHG levels, but I must caution that there are likely many unsafe and/or unreliable methods that must be avoided.
Sorry, but I really don't know much about chemistry - I was confused by your analogy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI relation to the effects of co2 atmospheric density, the issue, as I understand, is increased reflectivity. While the atmospheric co2 level is monitored in terms of ppm, the actual total quantity of co2 could be the critical factor in determining the total amount of thermal radiation reflected back to the Earth or contained within the atmosphere. In this case, a nearly 40% increase in total atmospheric co2 could produce significant effects. I admit I'm merely speculating, but the ppm dilution of c02 may not significantly reduce its effectiveness.
It is entirely possible to cool the planet by putting reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere; we know this because we've seen volcanoes do it. However, a) that will do nothing to stop ocean acidification or preserve the oceanic protein sources for hundreds of millions of people, and b) nations can't agree on how to cut back CO2 emissions. Where the aerosols are put will change weather patterns. How will the nations ever agree on who risks getting a drought or flood?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, JTDwyer,
First, Carlyle, you make some valid points regarding the feasibility of the sphere thing. Also, it doesn't make much sense to try putting reflectors near the poles where a) incident energy is the lowest anywhere on earth in the summer, and b) practically nonexistent in the winter; it's dark in the polar winters.
JT,
A good portion of the energy from the sun is transparent to the atmospheric gases. (I suspect that is why eyes evolved to be sensitive to the visible part of the spectrum.) This part of the spectrum is shorter in wavelength than infrared. Earth, being of lower temperature than the sun, emits longer wavelength energy. (Look up Planck's Law.) The term 'thermal' more typically refers to heat, but is sometimes associated with IR rather than visible light. In short, the earth receives shortwave energy from the sun, and emits whatever it has absorbed as longwave energy to space. Reflectance, as opposed to absorbance, on the other hand, does not change the wavelength.
Oh, and Carlyle,
Regarding "it is just not credible that the increase is responsible for the claimed above average global temperature increase":
Perhaps you should look up some software called MODTRAN; it is used to calculate atmospheric radiative properties. It clearly shows increasing effects of CO2 across all realistic values. It is developed and used by that bastion of liberal environmental conspiracies known as the U.S. Air Force.
Also, the stuff in garages with running cars that kills people is more commonly known as called carbon monoxide, where mono is a prefix meaning one, ie. one oxygen, CO, not CO4.
"it doesn't make much sense to try putting reflectors near the poles where..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd thought of that!
It's true that incident heat is least at the poles. Nevertheless, it is in fact the ice caps' reflectivity that partially sustains them. Some help would help.
I'm not saying they couldn't be deployed elsewhere as well, once studies had identified areas where they would be safe and have a useful effect.
The article itself is largely a rant against Edward Teller and anyone who would "correct" global warming OTHER THAN by accepting the global warming folks' anti-energy plans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments make it clear, don't they, that the root cause of increasing CO-2 is the increase in the population and its standard of living. Control Population! Reduce water and other usage!
Well, if I could turn back the clock 200 years (and still have my car) there'd be a lot less traffic. But until we have A Brave New World (which is really what the global warmists would like,) we won't turn back that clock.
The article itself is largely a rant against Edward Teller and anyone who would "correct" global warming OTHER THAN by accepting the global warming folks' anti-energy plans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments make it clear, don't they, that the root cause of increasing CO-2 is the increase in the population and its standard of living. Control Population! Reduce water and other usage! Whether the CO-2 is causing global warming is still actually an open question, but politically, the world is not going to accept the supposed solution. It just is not, so get over it. If we could ameliorate it, fine (but suppose we get global cooling? Think of the lawsuits, not to mention the wars.)
Well, if I could turn back the clock 200 years (and still have my car) there'd be a lot less traffic. But until we have A Brave New World (which is really what the global warmists would like,) we won't turn back that clock.
To my knowledge, overpopulation has not been part of any public discussion of global warming or even resource depletion, despite its being a critical factor in those issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the public is generally unaware that the population has increased so dramatically since WW II, or that it is predicted to increase by 30% by 2050.
I personally think there's little chance that any effective corrective action will be taken, but humanity really should be aware of the consequences of inaction before we are forced to experience them. Humanity deserves to be alerted to what is likely to happen to us and our progeny as a result.
My daughter married a Sikh fellow who has worked for a number of years at a large software developer here near Seattle. He makes a ton of money but is still so cheap in his habits that when his parents come on thier yearly trip to the USA they always stay at our house for a month or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I had to ask my daugher's father-in-law about global warming and whether India would give up rapid industrial progress to prevent average daytime summer temps from going from over 90 F. to maybe 95 F.
He thought not. What matters, he explained, is that you get rich enough to have air conditioning in your house, your car, and your office. Another five degrees on the outside temperature doesn't matter, as long as agriculture doesn't seem to be suffering.
He thought it might make a difference if the sea level could actually be seen to go up a full meter or so, and not a few alleged centimeters, but even that would be problematic. The urge to get rich is very strong.
How much CO2 and warming are bad? There is a correlation between CO2 and global temp. in the last 150 yrs., and the radiative forcing of CO2 has been measured in lab experiments. But I doubt the doomsday scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFoolishness! We aren't even sure about the weather next week and now we're smart enough alter natural processes on a planetary scale. That is frightening! And all in the name of something that hasn't yet happened and we aren't even sure what is happening. People need to wake up and stop letting fear-based advocacy groups with an agenda drive us to madness by creating a false sense of urgency.
"It's not at all likely that humanity could have intentionally produced even those same results with any controlled geoengineering program. How can human activity be reliably controlled?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman activities are controlled by economics, politics and technology. We started burning large quantities of fossil fuels after we invented the steam engine, the internal combustion engine and the electric generator. We continue to burn fossil fuels bec. they are cheaper than renewable energy.
When electric cars become cheaper and more reliable than ICE cars, consumers will shift. When nuclear fusion and solar panels become efficient and cheap, producers will shift. Political intervention is needed to ban the destruction of forests and provide family planning to the poor. The poor has the highest population growth.
From what I have read, it does not account for the fact that a little beyond the saturation point of our present level of CO2, the further greenhouse effect is significantly diminished because at that level it is already capturing all the available radiation input in the particular spectrum CO2 absorbs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost, but not "all". The difference between "most" and "all" in the simple radiative transfer models gets you about as much warming as Lindzen predicts. If you factor in other factors such as albedo flips (sea water or land as opposed to ice), higher water vapor content (because the saturation point of water in air is higher when the air is warmer), and the like, you suddenly find yourself right in the ballpark of mainstream climate scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can run MODTRAN3 here. It uses bands instead of lines like MODTRAN5, but it is close enough to illustrate the fact that there is no point at which more CO2 has no effect.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html
Graham,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll ideas should be considered, but if you are going to use reflectors at the surface, if would be a lot easier, more effective, and have less impact on the immediate environment to roll out a bunch of mylar in the Sahara. In reality, the idea of increasing the earth's albedo has already been looked at pretty hard, and so far, the best option for this is injecting sulfur dioxide droplets into the atmosphere. This would create cooling in exactly the same way that Mt Pinatubo did.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/
The problem with this is that it won't solve ocean acidification. But also, the article noted that messing with weather could be used "in time of war". That could work both ways. If world power A starts a sulfur dioxide program, and the next year world power B suffers a drought that devastates their harvest, there would be those living in B who would consider it to be an act of war.
You don't know much about means and variability do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe site you link contains a lot of information that, as far as I can tell at a glance, is all well and good. But then it leaps to a conclusion that can not be reached from the information presented.
One major flaw: "... these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable."
Not true at all. An analogy: Give me two sets of dice, one that rolls true and has a mean of seven and a range of 2-12, and another that has a range of 2-12, but is imbalanced and has a mean of 7.5. With minimal effort, I could tell with extremely high confidence that they were different from each other and I could measure the difference at being very near 0.5. What's more, I could make an awful lot of money with the second set.
"Six such tankers would have the capacity to completely cover an area the size of the Gulf of Mexico - needless to say, such dense coverage would be unnecessary."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Six such tankers would have the capacity to completely cover an area the size of the Gulf of Mexico - needless to say, such dense coverage would be unnecessary."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's incorrect. The Gulf of Mexico is 1.6 million sq. km. The largest supertanker has an area of 31,500 sq.m. and depth of 30 m. You can stack 600 plastic balls with diameter 5 cm on top of each other. All the balls in the tanker have total area of 18.9 sq. km. So to cover the Gulf of Mexico, you need 84,656 supertankers.
A simpler albedo cooling solution is to paint all the roads white. Black asphalt is usually the top coating of roads. White color reflects 7x more radiant energy than black color.
Chris, the models can be tweaked to give the desired results but do they reflect reality? I have yet to see one work for any length of time in reverse & give an accurate representation of the past. Possibly the greatest upset in modern science looks on the cards as a result of the results or rather lack of results from the LHC. Thousands of scientists have spent their entire careers based on the majority consensus belief in the Higgs boson & supersymmetry. Looks like it might not exist after all. What price consensus science? See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=beautiful-theory-collides
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe link between global temperature & an increase of 110 parts per million of CO2 is not proven as far as I am concerned & as far as thousands of eminent scientists are concerned also.
Having professionally worked with models of very large scale computer system I wholeheartedly agree that climate models have not been formally validated and cannot be relied upon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not so sure about the effect of atmospheric co2 levels: assuming the increase from 280 ppm in 1750 to 390 ppm cited here, an increase of 110 ppm seems insignificant. However, a 40% increase in total atmospheric co2 levels certainly is significant! If co2 is effective in preventing heat radiating from the Earth's surface from escaping the Earth's atmosphere, a 40% increase in co2 should be expected to significantly increase the amount of heat retained by the Earth's surface.
This is where the old adage about statistics comes to the fore. Also logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI gave the examples earlier of just how small these proportions of the atmosphere are. As for the 40 percent, if you only had one cent in your pocket & someone gave you another five cents, you would be five hundred percent richer. Still does not amount to much does it. Percentage figures are all but meaningless when the numbers are so small. Imagine if in all the world one person per year died of an incredibly rare condition. If two people out of the world population died one year that would be a one hundred percent increase. Hardly cause for panic.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are changing the subject. I am talking about a radiative transfer model and you are attempting to argue some point about general circulation models.
Not proven as far as you are concerned, OK, but then you are saying you know more about the physical properties of the atmosphere than the U.S. Air Force, and frankly, I doubt it. Or, perhaps you are merely saying you can't disprove what MODTRAN tells you, but you are unwilling to accept it. That I would believe.
"In reality, the idea of increasing the earth's albedo has already been looked at pretty hard, and so far, the best option for this is injecting sulfur dioxide droplets into the atmosphere."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInjecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is hardly the best option. Sulfur dioxide turns into sulfuric acid which is hazardous to health. Upon contact or inhalation, it burns your skin, eyes and respiratory tract.
To imitate a volcanic eruption like Mt. Pinatubo which released 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide, you need one million C-130 cargo planes flying to the stratosphere every 2 to 3 yrs.
A simpler albedo cooling solution is to paint all roads, sidewalks and roofs white. This can reverse the urban heat island effect and cool the urban areas by 1C to 3C.
This is another technique repeatedly used. The US Air force does not believe it either. Some or even most in the relevant department might but you can be sure not all the people in the US Air force with the requisite knowledge do. It might be the closest model they have found to fit but you can be sure their conviction will not be absolute. You hear the same claims about NASA believing this or that when often they are the beliefs of very few in NASA. Putting a brand like US Air force on something does not convince me. The simple fact is that despite the rate that CO2 has increased by in the atmosphere, the temperature has not increased in line with predictions, in fact some reputable claims are that it is going down. More tweaking required.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you know that Antarctic sea ice covers a quarter of a million square kilometres more area than it did thirty years ago & is still increasing? Strange we never hear about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not surprised. Despite the global warming mania, we're still in an Ice Age. Global temp. today is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow cool, its like back to the Victorian time when one person commit a crime, his/her who family will be executed,... excellent !! No wonder when u see 1 criminal will say that entire nation are bad guys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen one test fail, we better not do another similar improved one, no matter how small it is, I bet very old people hate radio, or TV, reminisce the good old days and blame anything bad on new influences...
I think the reason why geoengineer at this time are trying to fix the problem mankind had made over the last century, and other info shows that we are almost too late seeing a global warming catastrophe is coming which can wipe-out mankind or causes billions of death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe shall not stop understanding what shall and what shall not do. Experiment are never big scale, to ensure it will not have big impact if things go really bad.
Geoengineering might be a last resort or the only resort. Realistically, activities we are doing right now is not going to change green nearly fast enough, not to mention it does not reverse the problem we had created before, at best causing less in the future.
We shall not sit and pray for nothing bad will happen when so many info shows it is at the tipping point of no return already.
I wonder if those people saying no to geoengineering, r u saying we should give up or you simply does not believe that there is global warming or it is a problem at all?
I totally respect your love to nature, but when humanity have ruined the earth already, shouldn't we fix it and get it back to a healthy state?
Or do you respect your nature so much that you think "human" being part of nature, disrupting and destroying nature, destroying the earth is only natural and not need fixing it, so let it die as it is only natural?
But, don't worry, if global warming kills billions of people and we have not done any mass scale geoengineering to save the earth, or doing them too late, we will not blame you as you can easily say geoengineering will still kill billions of people, only later in time.
I think if there is no global warming but we change our habit to be more sustainable, much more green etc, we might have a tougher life as we might not have the freedom of driving around with V8 engines etc, but what if global warming is true, we will not only save the earth but also be living in a more dignified lifestyle you will be very proud of in front of your grand children ... most respectfully yours
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing green doesn't mean going back to the Middle Ages. Being green is shifting to new technologies like nuclear fusion, solar cells, electric cars, etc. How do you save earth by clinging to fossil fuels and driving your V8?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I agree with the first part of your analysis it never ceases to amaze me how cavalier many people from the developed world (especially America) are when it comes to denying other human beings from achieving basic levels of development. Did it occur to you at all that maybe the most "effective conservation method" would be for the 25% of people that consume 90% of the world's resources to begin to cut back drastically? Look at the amount of waste produced in industrialised countries – on average about 600 kgs (1320 lbs) is produced per person annually! Surely, isn’t rapacious consumerism and waste generation that we must be focusing our attention on?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global Warming" is nothing more than a scare tactic, like the so-called "Global Cooling" scare before it. These conditions of melting ice caps, etc. are as they were when the Vikings discovered America. Also, the "hockey stick" diagram (which is often used to "prove" global warming) is very misleadingly presented. It actually shows a cycle of temperatures, and as we have recently left a temperature "low," it is only natural for the temperatures to rise. Global Warming is nothing but a scam to scare people into buying "energy efficient" products (I personally have nothing against being energy efficient as it saves money in the long run. However, it is dishonest to scare people into buying products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee SSPP Blog Post: "No to Geoengineering: There Is a Better Path"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...the argument for geoengineering is becoming stronger. Have we reached such a crisis point that we must take this drastic measure?"
http://ssppjournal.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-to-geoengineering-there-is-better.html
James Fleming's definitions of 'geoengineering' and 'geoengineer' are quite wrong. The prefix geo means 'of the earth', it does not imply something on a planetary scale. For example geochemistry is the study of the Earth's chemistry, without any scale being implied. Thus, geoengineering does not deal only with planetary scale interventions. Consequently, James Fleming's attempt to widen the scope of geoengineering beyond the generally accepted understanding of the term by including projects like Project Argus is invalid. His extension of geoengineering to include weather modification is also not generally accepted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, the term 'geoengineering' is a very poor one to use for climate engineering / modification / intervention or whatever you want to call it. Geoengineering means literally 'engineering the earth' and that includes a lot more than the atmosphere. In many eyes, the term would not include the atmosphere at all or even the ocean but refer to geoengineering the solid earth. Hence, the engineering geology and geotechnical engineering fraternity has a much better and long-standing claim in my view to the term geoengineering. There are a number of real 'geoengineering' websites, journals, university departments, companies etc that deal with these subjects including for example:
http://www.geoengineer.org/
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/journal/10706
http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators4_B_GeoT.html
http://casehistories.geoengineer.org/
http://www.geoguam.com/
http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl/
"That's incorrect. The Gulf of Mexico is 1.6 million sq. km. The largest supertanker has an area of 31,500 sq.m. and depth of 30 m."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said there would be production lines on board! They would be carrying the raw material, not the finished products!
Geoengineering??? Global Climate Manipulation??? Wow,it never ceases to amaze me how arrogant our species can be in its quest to master the natural processes that occur in nature. Good luck with all your grandiose ideas. The main reason why we are having all this problems is because the earth is now reaching the breaking point from all the abuse that we have inflicted on it with our seemingly wonderful ideas for the benefit of humans without thinking the consequences of our actions to other things all around us.There are too many to mention them all, but take for example the Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River. The main focus when it was built was to promote commerce and cheap electricity. The salmon runs of the Northwest region that come upriver through the Columbia did not stand a chance because they were never in the equation during the planning phase. The cultural practices of the Native Americans that were tied to the natural rhythm of the river and the salmon became a major collateral damage. To all of you geniuses with the ego bigger than the planet that we are living in, consider all the worst possible scenarios that could happen as a result of your latest fancy and come up with a solution to rectify them before you start because it might just make the difference between our own extinction and our survival as a species, not to mention the rest of all the other living things that we depend on for our existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascinating suggestion. I have not heard anyone yet discuss diverting rivers. I am just editing a book I have written about rising sea level. In it I discuss some realistic approaches to what lies ahead. I would like to add a line or two addressing your suggestion, citing you of course. Please contact me. see my web site johnenglander.net
Thank you.