Interesting problems if the blocking sunlight idea isn’t done just right. And even if they do…

The unknown risks of “geoengineering” — in this case, tweaking Earth’s climate by dimming the skies — left many uneasy.

“If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it’s very tempting to a scientist,” said Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo. “But I worry.”

Arrayed against that worry is the worry that global warming — in 20 years? 50 years? — may abruptly upend the world we know, by melting much of Greenland into the sea, by shifting India’s life-giving monsoon, by killing off marine life. If climate engineering research isn’t done now, climatologists say, the world will face grim choices in an emergency.
[…]
Engineers from the University of Bristol, England, plan to test the feasibility of feeding sulfates into the atmosphere via a kilometers-long (miles-long) hose attached to a tethered balloon.

Shepherd and others stressed that any sun-blocking “SRM” technique — for solar radiation management — would have to be accompanied by sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions on the ground and some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process not yet perfected, to suck the gas out of the air and neutralize it.




  1. bobbo, had enough dogma today? says:

    #26–skeptic==fair response but you miss the point. Unassociated expenditures to special interests across the energy spectrum do not “a policy” make. As I stated, “something” like a new graduated gas tax phased in to ACTUALLY encourage switch to alternative energy/efficiency would be an example. The funding of corn to methanol, just for example is NOT an example of support for our green energy future, its a bribe to Iowa Corn Farmers for their votes every two years. Not a “program.”

    Do-ill==how would assuming the intellectual, design, manufacturing lead on green energy turn us into a third world economy? BOO!!!! That was the boogie man. Shill.

    Mickey–I can’t quite tell if you’re lying or not as you just aren’t making any sense, even when you show us the numbers you make up.

    And the ocean continues to rise.

  2. nightstar says:

    “some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process”

    Hmm sounds kind of like light phase photosynthesis… Trees?

  3. Animby says:

    #18 Guyver: You’re an idiot. Politicians do NOT bother with KY Jelly before pounding the taxpayers.

    # 23 bobbo, “An increasing gas tax”
    I would certainly support such a tax IF there were a guarantee it would be used to further a well-defined energy policy. Of course, gubbmint would never keep it’s hands off an revenue source, so that’s a fantasy.

    “2. Patrick Moore?–he’s wrong.” Short. Succinct. Unsupported? The only Patrick Moore I knew is an astronomer so I looked this guy up. A brief(very) reading shows a guy who is pretty level headed. HE supports nukes, YOU support nukes. He does not deny AGW – just doesn’t believe humans are the sole cause of it. What’s your problem with him?

    Once again, I get the feeling you are arguing just to argue. Did your cappuccino machine break down?

  4. MIkeN says:

    >I can’t quite tell if you’re lying or not as you just aren’t making any sense, even when you show us the numbers you make up.

    I would expect something like that from Mr ConFusion. I think you act as a contrarian, so when you don’t see the usual idiots to argue against, you become the idiot.

  5. bobbo, had enough dogma today? says:

    Animby—

    1. Gas Tax. No reason to tie the revenue from the tax to xyz. It is sufficient to put a disencentive on gas and let the free market find the alternatives. Alt Energy/Green/Solar/Renewable should be developed/funded according to its own needs and merits. Maybe more than, maybe less than whatever a gas tax would provide.

    2. Its easy to sound “level headed.” Just ignore any fact you don’t like, don’t call anyone names, and be completely ineffectual. Easy Peasy.

    I’ve actually intentionally NOT READ anything by Moore. I don’t care. My mind is made up. Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and costly, centralized and subsidized. Man should not subject himself to technology that is labeled with skull and crossbones. Now, being nothing but reasonable, “if” a new nuke tech comes along that consumes its own waste and is fail safe to no leakage- – – – then – – – – I’m sure Green Energy will already be supplying all our needs.

    3. When did I ever support nukes? I said I wasnt that much against them as far as creating a few 50 mile circles of land that is uninhabitable for 500 years, that I was against a China Syndrome event poisoning a water aquafer for 100K years. How is that “for” nukes. Oh yea, I did say they could be used for submarines. So let’s strike that last remark. I mustabeen drunk.

    I am not arguing to argue, even though I admit its about as meaningful. Rachael Madow did a show reciting there has been a “major” nuke accident about every 10 years. Everything is poo-pood as “the worst did not happen.” Keep the sheep asleep. Meanwhile, worn out plants are having their licenses renewed because the operators won’t tear them down without additional government money. Its an underfunded/undercosted scam from start to finish.

    I’d be INSULTED you say I argue just to argue, but in truth, it sounds like a good idea. something to consider, anyway.

  6. bobbo, had enough dogma today? says:

    #36–Lyin’ Mike==but I was/am arguing with YOU! Jeeze, more contradictory thinking within a single breath. Birther for sure!

    I would go back and take another cut at your mathematical progression there, but to be truthful, I haven’t yet decided to follow Animby’s advice.

  7. MIkeN says:

    You weren’t arguing with me, you said you couldn’t understand it, ala conFusion, though he usually doesn’t admit it or even realize it.

    Even my progression wasn’t responding to you.

  8. MIkeN says:

    #37, high gas tax does not achieve the goal of preventing global warming, for two reasons.
    One, gasoline use in cars can at best reduce emissions by 20%; scientists say an 80% cut is required. You have to go after the coal usage.

    Presumably, you would use the same policy for coal. However, you still have the second problem.

    Two, US’ share of carbon emissions is less than one quarter of world emissions, and adding in Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia still only gets you to 45% of emissions, and this share is dropping each year.

    You have to be able to construct an alternative energy that is cheap enough for the other 55% countries to want to use it. Taxing the conventional use fuels only makes the competition price high, and takes away the incentive for developing these alternative energies at a cheap rate.

  9. bobbo, had enough dogma today? says:

    #40–Mike–what you say “makes sense.” That worries me. Of course, the goal of developing green energy is to stop the use of all carbon sources. That could well be sparked by a gas tax with a complete transition guided by the economics.

    “If” the economics were right for the USA, they should have some effect on China and India? Or not but without an alternative of some worth, there is no possible solution at all.

    So, we do what we can do. We show its possible and provide the alternatives for others to choose or reject. Many Global Warmers are concerned we may be past the tipping point already, and that may be true or not. The rationale for going green will still exist: cheap, clean, distributed. Could even help with the problems of melted ice caps, acidified ocean, and climate shift.

    We’d never go to war to force cap and trade on anyone would we?

  10. Animby says:

    #37 Bobbo – I must have had a small stroke. I was sure you had come out for nukes as a way to get us off petrol. My apologies.

    You do bring up an interesting point to wit: nuke in subs (and aircraft carriers, etc.) They have an excellent safety record – I wonder why they are not used more for civilian purposes…

    As for your requirements that nukes generate no waste and are failsafe … well, due to the Clinton administration fast integral reactors were banned! They consume almost all of their own waste. Fourth generation reactors are built to be completely safe even in super quakes. There are at least half a dozen major designs that could meet your requirements BUT the US Nuke Regulatory Commissars refuse to grant authority to build them! The hotbed of nuclear engineering these days is in India.

    Green energy will never satisfy our needs (though I agree it could certainly help to a substantial degree). We do not know what will happen to the environment if we put up a million windmills and remove that energy from the atmosphere.

    So, it’s either nukes or carbon. Take your pick. We know how to make better and safer reactors but the gubbmint won’t let us.

    Soon, India will have cheap plentiful power and that poor third world nation, USA, will be looking for an outlet to charge their useless Volts and Priuses.

  11. Dallas says:

    #25 “…eliminating all oil use won’t change the global warming picture…it’ll switch to coal..”

    You miss the point. Eliminating oil as THE energy source for PAH’s (Personal Ass Haulers) eliminates (1) a much dirtier means of burning fossil fuels vs a power plant. (2) Less money given to the Saudi-Bush oil cartel. (3) Oil independence because we can source all needed (4) bring battery technology expertise to America instead of yielding that to China which is much further ahead (6) Reduction of military resources needed to protect the middle east oil tit

    Make sense to you or do I need to come up with another 1/2 dozen reasons?

  12. MIkeN says:

    >We show its possible and provide the alternatives for others to choose or reject.

    If this alternative means spending substantially more money, then they will reject it. If it is costing just a little, then they may accept it.

    I think a large gas/coal/carbon tax makes it less likely that alternative technology which is cheap gets developed. It locks in expensive technologies, as the existing companies aren’t competing on lowering cost, but on marketing for more customers, and lobbying for more subsidies.

  13. MIkeN says:

    #45, so basically, you were not focused on the post at hand. Even your existing points aren’t convincing of much.

    1) Oil is dirtier than coal? How about if you account for more energy needed when you add in the step of a battery, and transmission losses?

    2) Price of oil is driven by demand and supply. So yes, the reduction in demand from the US would lower the price, but that would be temporary unless other countries also did the same. The oil market is global. Now more drilling in the USA would also lower the price and send less money to the Saudi/Bush cartel. Do you support this, or do you support sending more money to the Saudi/Bush oil cartel?

    3) More domestic drilling to reduce oil dependence you support then? Your solution would cause America’s % of foreign oil to increase. The oil market is global so people buy the cheapest. Less oil demanded, means only the cheapest sources will be used, which is not America.

    4) Battery technology will always be in China because they are willing to pollute, and don’t care if their workers get sick. Plus this is circular logic as the technology is only needed if you take the less oil path.

    5) You have no 5th point
    6) Come now that is foolish. If oil was driving things, then Israel would be abandoned, not supported. Then again, maybe this is what is driving Pres Obama’s foreign policy.

  14. Glenn E. says:

    So they want to poison the upper atmosphere with sulfates, in order to save the earth from the effects of human activity. Sounds like they want to kill off the humans, faster than nature itself might be doing it. Possibly, so they (whoever they are) can emerge from protective shelters, sooner, after all the sulfates have been absorbed back into the oceans. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to breathe and eat the stuff, they seeded the air with. Remember “acid rain”? The results of Sulfur Dioxide, contamination of the air. Well sulfates can be just as bad, for our health. Some people are actually allergic to certain sulfur based compounds. Imagine spraying the air with Peanut Butter, in order to cure some believed imbalance. And they saying, “Oh sorry all those who are deathly allergic. But our needs come first. So too bad.”

  15. Glenn E. says:

    Ya know they still don’t make very much wine up in England. But centuries ago, they did. Then the so-called mini-ice age happened. And after that most of the wine making in Europe was done in warmer France.

    We’ve got this tree in the back yard that blossoms every spring, like clockwork. First day of Spring, the buds split open. And practically ever time, a frost follows that week, and burns them brown. The tree is about 100 miles too far north for the proper climate. But my point is, if GW were having the effect that’s claimed. Then the blossoms won’t keep being damaged the same way, every year, in the thirty years we’ve had the tree. In fact this year was the worse I’ve seen. We had about five days of sub-freezing morning temps, after Spring started. And some cold rainy days, before it finally warmed up a just little.

  16. t0llyb0ng says:

    There is no hyphen in “harebrained.”

    An ice age will begin in 5,000 years. Decided by solar activity. Humans will not enter into the equation—short of a nuclear holocaust.

  17. t0llyb0ng says:

    “Life adapts or it looses.”—priceless

  18. bobbo, had enough dogma today? says:

    #50–Blossom Boy==are you serious? You actually “think” GW is “proven” or not based on your tree? YOUR TREE!!!!!!!

    Well, at least your stupidity is based on observation. //// ……..hmmm, is that better or worse?

    That old dilema of having to consider more than one issue at a time.

    Glenn–whats the “micro climate” of your area? Sitting downhill? In a pressure gradient corridor?

    Think about what/how you think and get back to us?

  19. Breetai says:

    Hey why don’t we experiment with Bill Gates’s suggestion of getting CO2 down to Zero?

    Ignore the fact that that would kill all plant life on the planet… and eventually us.

  20. Guyver says:

    23 Bobbo,

    McGuyver—over and over again, same re-hashed arguments/positions.

    Rats. I thought I saved the link to our last mish-mash with you unable to answer a simple question. Unfortunately, I forget what that simple question was, but I’m sure an extended discussion here would devo to that same question.

    It’s amazing how you seem to think only one side goes over the same re-hashed arguments / positions. 🙂

    Something like: so you think dumping all this carbon into the atmosphere should have zero effect?

    I’ve never said that there is zero effect nor implied it. What I have asked is if man-made CO2 contribution has any statistically SIGNIFICANT effect (assuming CO2 is causal for our planet’s “crisis”).

    I don’t know, and neither do you. I go with the consensus of qualified scientists, my common sense, and pop literature that reports all too many events consistent with the models.

    What do I claim to know? I merely question and the liberals get really bent out of shape over this. As for “qualified” scientists, you should really consider where the buck stops and how things get editorialized by non-scientists.

    In his own words, Patrick Moore explains why he left the organization (Greenpeace) that he helped to create: “That’s why I left Greenpeace: I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call “pop environmentalism,” which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level.”

    The liberals pretty much mimic what he’s just explained for anyone who questions their “authoritative” bandwagon propaganda… pretty much sums up your tactics. 🙂

    Patrick Moore?–he’s wrong.

    Of course he is. Because you’re Bobbo who admits he doesn’t know much on the topic. 🙂

    Pretty ego-centric of you to say something towards someone who DEMONSTRATED he’s had real interest in saving the planet.

    Battery Vehicles–should be in the mix. But until a break thru there, I vote for compressed air vehicles.

    As long as you understand how non-green batteries are, then I don’t care. As for compressed air vehicles if people want it, then go for it. Although, would it pass U.S. safety standards for a crash?

    Everyone’s goal is to spend someone else’s money. Oil does it now.

    Corporate and individual welfare recipients along with liberals do. Most other people do not.

    Great link. Always hard to find when you want them. Funding research disproportionately on fossil fuel technology does NOT address moving our economy off carbon. An increasing gas tax would for instance.

    The reality is until something dramatic happens technologically, it’s going to be a petroleum world for a long time. Just because more is spent on fossil fuels DOES NOT mean enough money hasn’t been spent on alternative sources. You’re looking at this as though you want to write a blank check with other people’s money.

    Research needs to also be done in getting every little bit out of our current fuels as well and minimizing undesirable output. Stop having a case of penis envy because your pet project didn’t get as much as the project which will likely have the greatest impact in the near future.

    I am nothing but pragmatic. You are devo.

    LOL

  21. Guyver says:

    35, Animby,

    18 Guyver: You’re an idiot. Politicians do NOT bother with KY Jelly before pounding the taxpayers.

    If you could improve your reading comprehension, I wasn’t directing KY jelly usage at politicians.

    37, Bobbo,

    I’ve actually intentionally NOT READ anything by Moore. I don’t care. My mind is made up.

    Your mind is made up in spite of the facts?!?!?! Say it isn’t so! 🙂

    How is that “for” nukes. Oh yea, I did say they could be used for submarines. So let’s strike that last remark. I mustabeen drunk.

    Moore does point out how ignorant people tend to have an emotional knee-jerk reaction whenever they hear the word “nuclear”.

    “My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. And indeed today, Greenpeace still uses the word “evil” to describe nuclear energy. I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons. Nuclear medicine uses radioactive isotopes to successfully treat millions of people every year, and those isotopes are all produced in nuclear reactors.”

    42, Taxed Enough Already Dude,

    If global warming alarmists could predict tomorrows weather with precision, I might believe they know something about the weather. Until then, the planet has fabulously survived every celestial and terrestrial catastrophe thrown at it, without bozo scientists getting in the way.

    Bobbo probably owns ocean-front property which is why he seems so paranoid at times.

    44, Animby,

    I was sure you had come out for nukes as a way to get us off petrol.

    If he were pragmatic, he probably would have supported nuclear energy.

    45, Dallas,

    You miss the point. Eliminating oil as THE energy source for PAH’s (Personal Ass Haulers) eliminates (1) a much dirtier means of burning fossil fuels vs a power plant. (2) Less money given to the Saudi-Bush oil cartel. (3) Oil independence because we can source all needed (4) bring battery technology expertise to America instead of yielding that to China which is much further ahead (6) Reduction of military resources needed to protect the middle east oil tit

    1. You need to go nuclear and eliminate most of coal and petroleum. Not realistic nor pragmatic.

    2. Contrary to environmentalist wacko thinking, if we did go to Iraq the first time over oil then it was to keep it expensive and not cheap. Saddam fully intended to dump as much oil in the market to make “quick cash” due to depleting his financial resources with his war with Iran.

    3. We could have oil independence, but the environmentalist wackos refuse to allow for drilling.

    4. Again environmentalist wackos don’t want this done in our backyard. China doesn’t care and they’re taking advantage of this.

    5/6. See your point in 3… you want to have your cake and eat it too.

    46, MikeN,

    If this alternative means spending substantially more money, then they will reject it. If it is costing just a little, then they may accept it.

    That makes no sense to a liberal wanting to spend other people’s money.

    49, Glenn,

    So they want to poison the upper atmosphere with sulfates, in order to save the earth from the effects of human activity.

    No. They’re trying to protect the entire planet from all life on Earth. Most CO2 comes from mother nature… in comparison, human contribution is about one-thirtieth (if I recall correctly).

  22. bobbo, had enough dogma today? says:

    McGuyver–as the rule I judge this exchange by, I could write all night and still be the winner. I love shortened prose, it smells like victory.

    I ask you to number your main points, or every paragraph so my response will be clear. I wouldn’t ask if I didn’t judge there was benefit for you as well. So, in order as I find from your always reasonable appearing but substantively twisted response:

    1. If you are repetitive, and I respond, then of course you have made me repetitive as well. Maybe my response will get a little more imaginative to break the monotony, but not much. You are very consistent, diversion combination plate of mischaracterization, misdirection and straw man.

    2. “I’ve never said that there is zero effect /// could be true

    nor implied it. /// BS, you directly imply it in what follows as you do throughout. There is of course a weaker implication by not agreeing.

    What I have asked is if man-made CO2 contribution has any statistically SIGNIFICANT effect (assuming CO2 is causal for our planet’s “crisis”). /// Yes, and you do that in counterpose to the long stated position of the consensus of qualified scientists as set forth in the IPCC reports of exactly that point. Its significant and we may well be already past the tipping point. This type of imagined sophistry on your point is actually only a demonstrated leave of your senses.

    3. “you should really consider where the buck stops and how things get editorialized by non-scientists.” /// You need to be more specific and express. I’m not going to create red herrings for you. As best as I can make of your muddled statement–I disagree. The work of the IPCC is seperate and apart from where bucks stop if they have passed thru the editorializing process at all.

    4. Why Moore left Greenpeace says nothing about the validity of AGW. I have never read an article by any pro-nuke person that addresses the dangers of operation and storage, the costs thereof. ALWAYS, the are ignored or dismissed. Waste of time to read another one. If Moore has something “new” to say, I’m happy to read and consider it. Please quote him in relevant part.

    5. “Corporate and individual welfare recipients along with liberals do. Most other people do not.” /// The fantasy life of liebertardians is a tangent to this discussion. Pro Nuke/Carbon forever advocates want “all others” to pay for the risk exposure and collateral expenses necessary to make such energy sources economically viable.

    6. I’m not afraid of nor confused about the nuclear genie as a weapon or as a power source or as a medical modality. Nuke like anything else on earth is to be managed for our benefit as best determined. Like coal. Like Oil. Like Methane. Like Solar. Pragmatic. Pragmatic as in not ignoring downstream costs and full cradle to grave costs/risks/benfits/harm.

    7. Cognizant is not a synonym for paranoid although you would like that confusion to stand.

    8. Your review of Gulf War One is as accurate as your substitution of Iran for Kuwait. Of course Sadam wanted Kuwaits oil just as we wanted to keep him from it. Sadly, control of Kuwait oil does not control the price. simple minded misdirection that isn’t true.

    9. Proven oil reserves/natural gas reserves no where near self sufficiency. You are just being stupid now to see if anyone is reading.

    Got any leftover KY? I’d like to extricate myself from your prison of delusional talking points and obfuscation.

  23. Glenn E. says:

    I’m thinking that England wants to block out the sun, because they realize the the sun does set on the British Empire. Because the “empire” is no longer all over the world. So why by blocking out the sun, wherever the British Empire no longer exists, they can save face by saying it’s not shining there anyway. The sun never sets on the British Empire, where it counts.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9321 access attempts in the last 7 days.