Vice-Regent

Exactly but I don't quite see it in the same light. It's a convincing argument but as it stands now humans are not separate from the natural processes.

So true. We live in dire times that demand extreme measures but if you know that global warming will eliminate everything but sub-lethal carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 then there's reason to be complacent. Yes it's a less than ideal situation but we will take what we can get. Geoengineering is the only thing that scares me to be honest. I think Dane Wigington is right on the "money". The difference between me and Dane is that I don't believe there is an active aerosol injection program ongoing. All current aerosol emissions are unintentional. (a byproduct of global industrial civilization)

Such a world setup would of been a reality if either Nazi Germany or the USSR conquered all of Europe. I am with you on this one in that it's non-functional in the long-run. The system of exploitation is inherently tainted. Whatever you wish to call it. Capitalism is a piece of it. Try putting China in charge of the world and see how far you get. You may even collapse faster.

Collapse or grow is where we are now and going forward. You're not understanding that climate change will kill at least 6-7x more people than the holocaust and world wars combined. We are not the "good guys". Not saying there was ever a cohort of good guys. Just various factions looking out for their self-interest.

I am now in damage control mode. This cost was more than I could bear. The green catalpa tree has turned All white; the cherry blooms once more. In one whole year I haven’t learned A blessed thing they pay you for. The blossoms snow down in my hair; The trees and I will soon be bare. The trees have more than I to spare. The sleek, expensive girls I teach, Younger and pinker every year, Bloom gradually out of reach. The pear tree lets its petals drop Like dandruff on a tabletop. The girls have grown so young by now I have to nudge myself to stare. This year they smile and mind me how My teeth are falling with my hair. In thirty years I may not get Younger, shrewder, or out of debt.

Concerns about Iron Fertilization Biological concerns Chemical concerns Ocean circulation Climate “Natural” fertilization Ethical Issues Because so few experiments on iron fertilization have been conducted, there are still many uncertainties associated with the long-term effects. While the short term effects on phytoplankton growth and carbon sequestration seem positive, little is known about how the entire ecosystem would be affected by iron fertilization. Many hypotheses seem to overlook the true complexity of the ecosystem. Before large-scale iron fertilization projects can be pursued, many questions about the long term chemical and biological impacts must be answered and details of the actual cost effectiveness should be investigated. Biological concerns Effects of increased iron concentrations (and the associated decrease in pH) on other organisms We cannot say with any certainty what the effects of increased iron concentrations (and the associated decrease in pH) would have on other organisms. Some organisms are highly intolerant of such changes in their environment and therefore would not be able to survive. This would also effect the overall biodiversity and continuity of the food chain. Decreased productivity of deeper algal growth Increased phytoplankton mass in the surface waters would decrease the depth to which light penetrates, upsetting deeper algal growth and productivity. Inhibition of zooplankton productivity During Iron Ex II it was observed that zooplankton feeding was inhibited because iron fertilization caused larger species of phytoplankton to become dominant. This effect would therefore alter the food chain by promoting the growth of larger phytoplankton and inhibiting zooplankton production. Decreased overall biodiversity It has been observed in the past that there is a correlation between algal blooms and decreased biodiversity, and it has been hypothesized that prolonged increased phytoplankton growth may have the same effects. Many of the above factors could contribute to decreased biodiversity by selecting for the stronger species. Impact on the food web Any changes to biodiversity or species abundance will have tremendous effects on the food web. Iron fertilization will most likely cause changes in phytoplankton species composition. By decreasing the availability of some organisms, other organisms that use them as a food resource will also suffer. Chemical concerns Depletion of other nutrients Increased phytoplankton productivity may deplete other essential nutrients and cause them to become limiting to phytoplankton growth. This in turn would cause a decline in the rate of Carbon Dioxide sequestration Changes in elemental cycling As more nutrients are consumed, large quantities of them will enter into circulation, possibly overwhelming other aspects of the cycle. For example, there might be an increased cycling of nitrogen and evolution of N2O (a byproduct of denitrification) because of increased microbial activity in the deep ocean. Anoxic deep ocean/Methane production There are concerns about the added biomass in the deep ocean consuming all available oxygen and creating anoxic conditions in the deep ocean. This would also stimulate the production of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Dimethyl Sulfide Another concern is increased atmospheric concentrations of dimethyl sulfide, which is released from phytoplankton growth. In the atmosphere, dimethyl sulfide oxidizes to form sulfate aerosols, which after the greenhouse gases, exert the next largest influence on climate. The sulfate aerosols can cause an increase in cloud cover when present in significant quantities in the atmosphere. This in turn affects the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and can cause a cooling in the earth’s mean temperature. Ocean Circulation Carbon possibly only temporarily sequestered It is possible that the observed sequestration during the Iron Ex. experiments was only temporary, because long-term observations were not made. The carbon may not have been effectively removed, but only absorbed temporarily and the re-released later. Therefore, as dissolved carbon levels increased in the ocean mixed layer, the carbon would largely be returned to the atmosphere. Upwelling of stored carbon Carbon stored in the deep ocean will eventually re-circulate and, through upwelling to the surface, be released to the atmosphere. Upwelling/Downwelling of patch Ocean circulation patterns may affect the size and integrity of the fertilized patch, as up-and down-welling cause mixing and sinking. Climate Change in planetary albedo An increase in phytoplankton biomass could affect the planetary albedo, because phytoplankton have a different reflectivity than water. This could cause additional effects on climate by causing more or less reflection the sun’s rays. Change in mean oceanic temperatures Changes in mean oceanic temperature could also affect the effectiveness of fertilization. The ocean-atmosphere interface is highly temperature dependent for absorbing Co2. A rise in mean ocean temperature might offset the effectiveness of fertilization because it would decrease the amount of CO2 that could be dissolved. Changes in net flux of greenhouse gases Because iron fertilization would only be effective in certain regions, other parts of the ocean may experience different changes in the flux of greenhouse gases. Possibly, this could also lead to anoxia in some regions. “Natural” fertilization Deep Sea Volcanic activity There are also potential natural sources of iron fertilization. One of these is undersea volcanic activity. Deep ocean hydrothermal vents pump large quantities of iron rich water into the ocean. If shifts in hydrothermal activity deep within the ocean occur, this iron may be introduced into the portions of the ocean that are iron deficient and a natural bloom may take place. Changes to desert area If significant changes occur to the area of earth’s deserts they could contribute a higher concentration of iron dust to the atmosphere, which would similarly act to naturally fertilize the ocean. Deep ocean iron beds There is also concern about the natural feedback mechanisms by which the effects of iron fertilization may be amplified. Altering phytoplankton growth might also alter algae growth, which might in turn affect deep ocean iron beds, causing an increase in concentrations of iron and further amplifying phytoplankton growth. Such a unstable scenario could possibly send us back to an ice age. Ethical Issues Finally there are also ethical issues surrounding the topic of iron fertilization. Much of the damage that has been done to our environment is a result of numerous technological advances and industrial expansion in the last century. It was inevitable that at some point man would try and counteract some of the damage we have inflicted on our environment via more technology. Whether or not iron fertilization is ethically correct is an important question for scientists and policymakers alike to consider. Hopefully the answer will become clearer as the true risks of this technology are revealed. Policy Issues Need for Policy Experiment Evaluation Current Policy Policy Evaluation Criteria The rate of technological advances in iron fertilization exceeds the rate of policy development. Because of this, it is necessary for the current issues and uncertainties to be evaluated so that regulations on iron fertilization practices can be put into effect. Without some kind of regulations from government, independent research and experimentation has free reign over the oceans, which are a common resource for all. Need for Policy Iron fertilization is a proposal with very high economic risks. If the long-term effects of iron fertilization were bad, it could have a horrible impact on the global economy. Many concerns have been raised about: Intergenerational rights and stakeholder equity with respect to common marine resources. Who is legally liable? Because the oceans are a common resource (outside of each country’s exclusive economic zone), who (individual, country, etc.) is legally responsible for protecting the oceans or for prosecuting those who abuse it? Potential costs and benefits are possibly not accurately represented in proposals, because of insufficient data to make such estimates. Media represents the prospect as overly optimistic and selectively reports peer-reviewed facts, contributing to premature legitimization of iron fertilization Governments of poorer countries are unaware or willfully ignorant of the potential negative impacts. Experiment evaluation There is also a need to develop evaluation criteria for proposed iron fertilization experiments in order to determine if such experiments are appropriate and necessary. This would avoid further experimentation that could adversely alter the ecosystem. Among the questions to be considered are: Is the experiment designed with full and appropriate consideration of existing scientific knowledge? Is the scale, both in regards to area and duration, appropriate for the experiment? Does the experiment lend itself to “life cycle” accounting of all the components involved in the fertilization? What should be measured and how well? Current Policy There is currently very little policy that can be applied to iron fertilization. At the international level, the United Nations “Law of the Sea” and the London Dumping Convention both do not pose serious regulations on iron fertilization. “Dumping” is defined as: “Any deliberate disposal of wastes or other material matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea,” unless “the placement of the matter (is) for a purpose other than the disposal thereof.” Under this definition, Iron fertilization would not be classified as waste. However, it is unclear if the facilitation of the transfer of “waste” CO2 could be classified as dumping. In the future, it is possible that International governments will establish a system of Carbon taxes and credits in order to regulate worldwide CO2 emissions. Therefore, the question arises of whether or not sequestration could count against a country’s used credits. The Lazio Bill, under legislative review in the U.S., could set a precedent for such domestic carbon management guidelines and standards. This bill supports actions that lead to “actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or actual increase in net carbon sequestration.” This bill would also grant a reduction in the amount of carbon credits claimed equal to the amount of CO2 sequestered. However, in order to qualify for such reductions, adequate scientific monitoring must be completed to prove the amount of carbon sequestered. Much more scientific research on the effectiveness of iron fertilization would be needed in order to meet these criteria.

By the time populations stabilize the damage will already be inflicted and there will be a mass die-off. That would be a failure to transition. Dangerous mentality. Climate change will save us from capitalism. it's the consumption per person that is killing us right now. I only want to reduce it so we can keep our current standard of living without adverse effects. It's not enough to stabilize where we are and we are far from that holding steady on population. The population will infact never stabilize. It will rapidly collapse. It will look like a bell-curve on population charts. So i'm not sure if it matters at this point what we do in first-world nations.

The scale of the problem is completely different. You are talking about phasing out a few industries which utilized CFCs and now we are talking about phasing out civilization as we know it. The moral of the story is if the problem can be solved it will be solved within reason. Climate change is a predicament with no solutions. Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere. The science of steady-state civilizations is rather interesting but it is my belief that as long as capitalism is our model they will all fail in the end. Ultimately we may need to go to war with capitalism particularly because it's consuming resources better utilized for steady-state civilizations and the urgency of climate change and the global biosphere. Large areas of agricultural and urban lands must return to nature as we attempt to re-stabilize the carbon cycle. People don't want steady-state because it places restrictions on the individual's freedom but you can counter this by limiting the population to the planet's natural carrying capacity of 1 billion humans or 250 million humans with a 1950s per capita usage of resources. Think about the beauty of a stable world. One or two children for each applicable couple. There's nothing wrong with limiting population especially as infant mortality has markedly decreased. Maybe with the passing of the generations we can move into a better future. I am not sold on the idea of the species being fundamentally untenable. The challenge of our time is collapse and how to manage collapse in the least damaging manner. The secondary challenge is ending all emissions before 2035 by all means necessary including up to accelerationism (the process of accelerating economic collapse) and warfare on a global scale. I sincerely doubt we can continue emitting GHGs beyond 2050. It's simply not possible (because civilization will be destroyed by climate destabilization) but the additional 15 years of silenced emissions would help us recover faster in the future.

Cross-posted from my reddit account...

and a bunch of other people not including your's truly.

Stephen's City snowhole strikes again.

The model is broken at a fundamental level since the update. It needs a corrected iteration. The cold bias has increased to -0.3C globally averaged.

A good illustration of why I don't post in the Philly or SNE forum as much.

I see Mount Holly is an advocate of the white rain.

It's not okay for a brother to visit a sister. Double-standard.

It makes more sense for the initiating ridge breaking to be on this side considering the much larger area of ocean relative to land.

I will call this storm the forum roaster. Like a weenie roast for that special occasion.

You should be okay out there in Manchester. it's literally white rain for everyone in the forum except for you and you almost miss out yourself for lack of precipitation.

The snow maps on Tropical tidbits are completely different. I suspect those are the weenie snow maps. Seems like a white rain event.

Include your's truly in the list of the condemned. Is all of this really worth losing these beautiful places forever? (for all intents and purposes) This is why I compare capitalism to a modern form of slavery. If people had freewill they would have already walked away. It's that simple. Stop debating and go to war with these assclowns. We needed a sense of cohesion for 50+ years now. There is absolutely zero cohesion in society and we have this ridiculous form of identity politics. Shall I continue to explain why we are so ****ed? I think not. Everyone knows that they are willing participants in this system but remember when it finally stops working for you that nobody will be there to bail you out. You will be alone in this hell that you created for yourself.

How did you travel to the future with your head up your ass? Let's agree to mutually ignore each other. You are ridiculous.

@psuhoffman

The Chukchi Sea thing has climate change plastered all over it. We can't even get a good pattern with something insane like that. Our days are numbered for sure.