PDA

View Full Version : Geo-Engineering-- what says you?



nordicquarreler
13-01-14, 04:16
I recently watched a lively debate between author Clive Hamilton and Harvard Professor David Keith on C-Span (national television channel here in the U.S.) concerning the pros/cons of geo-engineering to fight "climate change". Professor Keith proposes that we should release 20,000 tons of sulphuric acid a year into the upper atmosphere to combat the greenhouse effect.

This is no longer the realm of crackpots and conspiracy buffs. The concept of geo-engineering is here to stay (unfortunately). Unlike the far more passive carbon credits debate, this fiasco will force each side into action ready camps-- we might be seeing tremendous activity in the upper atmosphere if the wrong team wins here.

What is your opinion on this stuff?

I think it is a HORRIBLE idea, one where we can only guess at the unintended side effects.

bicicleur
13-01-14, 07:53
if we could avoid human influence ( no greenhouse effect ) we would soon be going back toward a new ice age
that would be even worse for humans than global warming

i'm sure we will end up manipulating the atmosphere in an attempt to survive with 9 billion or more inhabitants
an equilibrium between nature and 9 billion people is simply impossible

FBS
13-01-14, 10:51
I like George Carlins' stand on these issues http://getenergysmartnow.com/2008/06/27/george-carlin-global-warming-denier/

nordicquarreler
13-01-14, 11:29
The funny thing is, if we somehow allow the spraying of sulphuric acid into the upper atmosphere and the mix is too strong (in other words if we reflect say eight percent of solar radiation instead of less than one percent) we could bring ice sheets to the tropics.

And this is using Keith's own numbers!

Professor David Keith is a lunatic huckster. He preaches the ills of global warming, yet during his presentation he spoke of his trips (plural) to Baffin Island where he noticed the ice retreating. Now unless he walked or jogged... and then swam to this rather frigid island, I'm pretty sure he burned through a healthy chunk of carbon emissions to power each of his trips Northward.

Typical eco-fringe reactionary. Professor Keith wants to dictate how everyone else lives, while he travels the globe hogging as much fuel as he wishes. Talk about a carbon footprint. Oh and by the way... he is lobbying for this spraying of sulphuric acid to begin using a global alliance. Under the threat of FORCE.

Don't worry though, it's not like he's used his Harvard creditionals to pony-up to the big banks to scare them into funding this hair-brained scheme. Um, oops I guess he has done that already...

bicicleur
13-01-14, 14:51
at some point something will have to be done
but nobody knows yet what
a lot of nonsense has allready been told and a lot more will follow

LeBrok
13-01-14, 18:05
You will never get agreement of 200 countries on direction and action of climate control. What might be beneficial for tropic countries will be vetoed by Russia and other Northern nations, and vice versa. For that reason global climate control is not feasible, unless we have major catastrophe of tens of millions of people dying from heat or cold.

nordicquarreler
14-01-14, 13:41
The real danger here is nation-states using this concept against their foes. I've been following this situation for some time, and I'm of the opinion it's already been going on (limited basis).

In an extreme emergency I could see putting a massive chemical "sheild" up... say if we reached 120 degrees F in New York City or Paris in January. Or if London reached 100 degrees every day in March. I'd say we would have to be in pretty dire straits though because the medicine is probably worse than the cure.

I wonder if HAARP will become part of this discussion...

hope
14-01-14, 16:07
I admire the research. That said, I don`t like the idea at all.
I agree with nordicquarreler. I think the idea is horrible and it reminds me of the words of one wise man.."Go sell crazy some place else, we`re all stocked up here !" And I apologise if this sounds flippant because I do take this issue seriously.

Of course something has to be done about global warming, we already understand this. My problem is, I really don`t see how pumping yet another pollutant into the atmosphere is the way to go....I understand the theory behind it, I just don`t like the idea of doing it.
The last I read said, latest study showed this could bring severe drought to the tropics. Just another one to add in the pro-con list.
Even if this was viable, who would control it?

LeBrok
14-01-14, 18:26
I admire the research. That said, I don`t like the idea at all.
I agree with nordicquarreler. I think the idea is horrible and it reminds me of the words of one wise man.."Go sell crazy some place else, we`re all stocked up here !" And I apologise if this sounds flippant because I do take this issue seriously.

Of course something has to be done about global warming, we already understand this. My problem is, I really don`t see how pumping yet another pollutant into the atmosphere is the way to go....I understand the theory behind it, I just don`t like the idea of doing it.
The last I read said, latest study showed this could bring severe drought to the tropics. Just another one to add in the pro-con list.
Even if this was viable, who would control it?
That's exactly why it won't be implemented on global scale. How many countries will agree on one solution.

Agreement on reduction of CO2 was much easier to achieve because it is about keeping status quo of CO2 level, pre industrial level, the natural state of Earth. To introduce something new into atmosphere and made all agree on it, it is impossible.

LeBrok
14-01-14, 18:33
The real danger here is nation-states using this concept against their foes. I've been following this situation for some time, and I'm of the opinion it's already been going on (limited basis). You would surprise me if you didn't believe in it.


In an extreme emergency I could see putting a massive chemical "sheild" up... say if reached 120 degrees F in New York City or Paris in January. Or if London reached 100 degrees every day in March. I'd say we would have to be in pretty dire straits though because the medicine is probably worse than the cure.

I wonder if HAARP will become part of this discussion... As I said before, unless there is a massive dying of people nobody is going to agree on big planet experiment. And if we have constant 120 F in New York, US would start countermeasures without UN agreement. Likewise with every superpower with deep pockets to affect global climate.
Having said that, we are a very long way from seeing catastrophic climate change to even contemplate these things.

bicicleur
14-01-14, 18:48
climate is unstable by nature
and the last 11.500 years it was very favourable for human population
during that period human population has multiplied by a factor of 100 or more likely 1000
that is the challenge we are facing
we don't have a clue how to solve this
but getting emotional won't help us
yet some politicians and movements try to use these emotions for their own benefit

hope
14-01-14, 20:35
That's exactly why it won't be implemented on global scale. Who many countries will agree on one solution..
:laughing: True..probably wouldn`t even need one hand to count out that answer.

nordicquarreler
15-01-14, 01:26
You would surprise me if you didn't believe in it.

As I said before, unless there is a massive dying of people nobody is going to agree on big planet experiment. And if we have constant 120 F in New York, US would start countermeasures without UN agreement. Likewise with every superpower with deep pockets to affect global climate.
Having said that, we are a very long way from seeing catastrophic climate change to even contemplate these things.
,
What's really frightening about this concept is that it doesn't take a super-power to do it. We are talking about 20,000 tons of product. All of this could be accomplished with two or three modified planes over the course of a year.

Lebrok, I know you think I'm a conspiracy theorist, but my track record on making predictions is pretty good. I will provide a list of some of my calls if you'd like.

toyomotor
16-01-14, 01:56
You will never get agreement of 200 countries on direction and action of climate control. What might be beneficial for tropic countries will be vetoed by Russia and other Northern nations, and vice versa. For that reason global climate control is not feasible, unless we have major catastrophe of tens of millions of people dying from heat or cold.
I agree, but if engineering could change weather patterns over some areas of the earth, we could possibly address the issue of famine more directly, and at the same time change damaging weather patterns. IF ONLY!

LeBrok
16-01-14, 03:10
I agree, but if engineering could change weather patterns over some areas of the earth, we could possibly address the issue of famine more directly, and at the same time change damaging weather patterns. IF ONLY!
For now it is impossible to change weather only regionally. The best we can do is seed silver-iodide into storm clouds with very mediocre results, if any. Air is very fluid so change in one region on bigger scale surely will affect other areas. The best example is huge volcanic explosion of Pinatubo in equatorial plain, but it affected the whole planet, lowering average temperature on Earth by 0.5 deg C. I think they estimated that Pinatubo introduced tens of millions of metric tons of ashes heavy with sulfur compounds.
To repeat this cooling effect humans would need to spend trillions of dollars a year. Not mentioning that we can't predict all environmental consequences at this moment.

nordicquarreler
16-01-14, 04:15
For now it is impossible to change weather only regionally. The best we can do is seed silver-iodide into storm clouds with very mediocre results, if any...
Simply untrue. There are other non-chemical methods.

LeBrok
16-01-14, 07:00
Simply untrue. There are other non-chemical methods.
Yes, we can pray.

nordicquarreler
17-01-14, 00:31
Yes, we can pray.

If I didn't know any better, I would have thought that was a ding directed in my general vicinity. But I know you wouldn't do that Lebrok.

Prayer was not the non-chemical method I was referring to though.

John123
17-01-14, 01:39
Oh, he can do ANYTHING he wants; trust me. He's admin after all. He can even block you for total nonsense; for literally no see-able/understandable reason LOL, I know this myself now as he even had the frustration to admit that he did so for no good reason.

toyomotor
17-01-14, 03:03
For now it is impossible to change weather only regionally. The best we can do is seed silver-iodide into storm clouds with very mediocre results, if any. Air is very fluid so change in one region on bigger scale surely will affect other areas. The best example is huge volcanic explosion of Pinatubo in equatorial plain, but it affected the whole planet, lowering average temperature on Earth by 0.5 deg C. I think they estimated that Pinatubo introduced tens of millions of metric tons of ashes heavy with sulfur compounds.
To repeat this cooling effect humans would need to spend trillions of dollars a year. Not mentioning that we can't predict all environmental consequences at this moment.
Again, I agree with you. IF it was possible, scientifically, economically, it would be impossible. Does that make sense?

LeBrok
17-01-14, 03:51
Again, I agree with you. IF it was possible, scientifically, economically, it would be impossible. Does that make sense?
Yes, at the end economy wins. Unless we are dying already, nobody is going to mess up with unsure methods, especially if it costs a fortune and all governments are in big debt.

nordicquarreler
17-01-14, 05:40
Yes, at the end economy wins. Unless we are dying already, nobody is going to mess up with unsure methods, especially if it costs a fortune and all governments are in big debt.

As I mentioned before, Professor Keith has the ear of the big banks (or at least one big bank). The Harvard elite always seem to get what they want, even if the more grounded, more sane plebians see the fallacy of their ways. Hamilton thinks the spraying will commence within our life times (he is also opposed to it).

toyomotor
19-01-14, 01:34
I think this topic comes under the general heading of "Beware of what you wish for"!