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.
20, Bobbo,
LOL
Dogma abounds. We really need to realize that the best of us are barely better than apes. Messing with the environment on a big scale and intentionally is pure arrogance. Life adapts or it looses. Just the way it is.
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. Something like: so you think dumping all this carbon into the atmosphere should have zero effect?
With your intransigence and denial of reality the only “win” possible here is to make shorter posts than you do! HAH!!!!!!!
1. 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. Contra: oil funded industry shills.
2. Patrick Moore?–he’s wrong.
3. Battery Vehicles–should be in the mix. But until a break thru there, I vote for compressed air vehicles.
4. Everyone’s goal is to spend someone else’s money. Oil does it now. Same thing.
5. 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.
6. Multiple solutions addressing multiple problems.
7. I am nothing but pragmatic. You are devo.
8. Talk about your whining? Hah, hah.
This was the start of The Matrix.
Not an unreasonable plan. We have seen volcanic eruptions lower the planets temperature for a few years with some aerosols. Indeed, climate scientists blame failure of their models to match observations on the existence of air pollution that was cooling the planet.
Dallas, eliminating all oil use won’t change the global warming picture. Not just because it’ll switch to coal powered electricity, and probably more of it than was in the oil. Suppose, people simply stopped doing the activities that required the oil today, no more driving, airplanes, etc, but everything else still happened as before. This doesn’t change the global warming picture, because oil isn’t that big an energy use relative to the problem, coal is. So any more solutions you want to proffer?
Bobbo, arguing for the sake of argument?
>>”Please bullet point this address? What government program/spending/regulatory actions are moving our economy off carbon?”
• you haven’t noticed the advancements of wind energy, solar energy, electric had hybrid cars, geothermal energy, regulations regarding energy efficiency in such things as cars, appliances, computers, lights, regulated speed limiters on trucks… I could go on…
>>”There is no quick solution. /// “no quick” as opposed to none at all?”
• see answer to your first question
>>”imagination? Hah, hah. How about realistically adding up the real numbers we have now? You know, like in a spread sheet?
• yeah, why don’t you. Shouldn’t take you more that a few months of work for 10 seconds of consideration from a few Dvorak readers.
>>”define “healthy” in any way that is not a pre-ordained excuse not to make changes.”
• come on bobbo you know what a healthy economy is. Gas is $5 /gallon where I live and food has gone up 25% in the last 6 months and it will be up another 20% by the end of this year. You want to make that worse? What’s your solution? What would you have legislated?
>>”Get out of the way, so that others may lead”
• I would wager that I am leading far, far ahead of you in sustainable living, energy conservation, and responsible consumption. I’ve been leading the way on those fronts for 40 years, when Greenpeace and Pollution Probe were just starting. Don’t bother getting out of the way. I doubt there are any behind you that want to pass.
#19 Nobody can outshine you in wasting web space. What a sheeple!
And #11 wins today’s alfie award.
I go back to what the late George Carlin once said.
“The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
The Earth is fine. The people are fucked.”
Okay guys the planet has not been warming in the last decade or so despite the BS you may have read. The data they are trying to use is so bad and been “adjusted” so much they don’t have a clue what the truth is any more. If your data lacks all precision you can’t measure trivial changes.
They have never even demonstrated a connection between temps and the tiny changes in CO2 levels that have occurred.
Sulfates = Acid rain. That is a proven killer of plant life. Removing sulfates from smoke stacks has been a major objective of smoke stack scrubbers from day one.
I suggest giving the idiots that suggested this two to the head and make the world a better/safer place to live for the rest of us.
There are so many ways this can/will go wrong that any government that attempts to do this can expect to end up being attacked by everybody.
As for Bobbo and crowd. The blurb in noagenda pretty much summed up the worth of that. Turn yourself into a third world nation with an awful standard of living and CO2 levels may fall a tad in a couple of hundred years.
By a tad I mean a lab can detect it not that it will have a meaningful impact on the ecosystem.
#30, you don’t get it. Even if temperatures stay the same, the climate scientists will say they are growing. It is very easy to do. Say the temperatures run like this since 1880
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,…..,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
2,2,3,5,4,6,5,3,12,8,7,6,5,10,12,9,6,6,10,7,9,12
You can look at the end and say temperatures haven’t been growing for the last dozen years. The climate scientists will say you’re wrong, the last ten year period is so much warmer than the one before it.
#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.
“some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process”
Hmm sounds kind of like light phase photosynthesis… Trees?
#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?
>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.
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.
#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.
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.
#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.