BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Beth Can you take your comments elsewhere. This thread is about Geoenginering - You have already made your position known. Am I the one who took both threads off topic? No, I simply responded to unecessary insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Am I the one who took both threads off topic? No, I simply responded to unecessary insults. You are the one who has been consistently off topic. I would appreciate your cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You are the one who has been consistently off topic. I would appreciate your cooperation. In response to degrading off topic posts, yes, I have been. I don't know anything about geoengenineering, but read back and see where it diverged. The source is your pal 'vergent' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 On a more serious note and more to the issue posited by the OP article, isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? The strawman argument that mitigating AGW by means of economic incentives to promote clean, renewable sources of energy will impoverish the world, redistribute wealth and strip people of their freedom is scaremongering and/or paranoia demonstrated by conservative political ideologues. If this is your main focus, it is clear to see why you would fight the science which presents the case for the necessity to do so. Relying solely on geoengineering to fix a problem after the fact is a fools game. Better to just deny the problem in the first place, or listen to modern science and approach the issue in an intelligent manner while we still have a chance at preventing the worst likely outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOH Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 On a more serious note and more to the issue posited by the OP article, isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? The strawman argument that mitigating AGW by means of economic incentives to promote clean, renewable sources of energy will impoverish the world, redistribute wealth and strip people of their freedom is scaremongering and/or paranoia demonstrated by conservative political ideologues. If this is your main focus, it is clear to see why you would fight the science which presents the case for the necessity to do so. Relying solely on geoengineering to fix a problem after the fact is a fools game. Better to just deny the problem in the first place, or listen to modern science and approach the issue in an intelligent manner while we still have a chance at preventing the worst likely outcomes. 1. both sides are guilty of this. afterall, how else do you get the public's attention? 2. what do you suggest? 3. and what exactly is the intelligent solution from modern science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 1. both sides are guilty of this. afterall, how else do you get the public's attention? 2. what do you suggest? 3. and what exactly is the intelligent solution from modern science? 1. My point was not to wait until our only option is to act after the fact. Geoengineering would only be necessary should the problem become bad enough to warrant it. This would involve an attempt to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and likely store it underground. Carbon capture and sequestration techniques. Off course, coal plants can be fitted with CO2 scrubbing technology now, but even this is being fought by the conservatives as an unnecessary burden on industry. 2. My point was not that science has the answers. The point is we need to invest in the development of technologies already available as well as research and development into improved efficiencies and deployment of advanced systems for the production and delivery of energy. In the mean time we (everywhere around the world) need all the oil, coal, gas etc. we can get our hands on to power our societies, but a transition towards renewables must take place and the quicker the better. The ultimate energy source will likely be nuclear fusion produced electricity, but that technology is still decades away. We also need to invest in a modern smart electrical grid to replace the current century old inefficient power grid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 At the moment I'm most concerned re. methane emissions. These are up something like 300% and in the short term are exerting a much more powerful greenhouse effect than the same amount of CO2. - I'd think that the first thing to tackle would be some means of addressing this problem, buying us a little time to work on CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 At the moment I'm most concerned re. methane emissions. These are up something like 300% and in the short term are exerting a much more powerful greenhouse effect than the same amount of CO2. - I'd think that the first thing to tackle would be some means of addressing this problem, buying us a little time to work on CO2. The effect must be quite small, as we've had no statistically significant warming over the past decade globally, and outside the Arctic, the rest of the globe has not shown any warming for 15 years (HADCRUT3). So why would we even need to geoengineer? The "other" theory favored a flatlining or very slight warming from the late 2003 until 2012, and if GHGes are increasing, there is no reason we shouldn't have seen accelerated warming as GHGes and H2O feedback supposedly trapped additional radiation within the wavelength of the atmospheric window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Beth Your views have been noted - and you posts are redundant. You see no reason for geoengineering. That's fine, repeating this over and over is not helpful This thread is to discuss something that you reject out of hand There are other threads in which to express you opinions about other topics Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 lots of the scientific articles require subscriptions/memberships, and I'm not at my work computer, but here are some examples of what is being proposed, and the attendant criticism. http://www.livescien...ng-balloon.html http://www.ametsoc.o...sstatement.html http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/ http://earthsky.org/...t-gobal-warming http://www.pnl.gov/n...ase.aspx?id=778 Phil Rasch has done a lot of work on it and so you can google up his name for more reading. Robert Jackson and Alan Robock also have written a good bit about it. essentially the scientific community is open to the research but also very cautious about the possible ramifications. the first post in this thread should just be deleted--that baseless political rant is lowest common denominator stuff that doesn't belong in a science forum. Lots of reading ahead - I agree that it would be nice if we could keep this thread as fact based as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Beth Your views have been noted - and you posts are redundant. They're no less redundant than yours, Terry. You see no reason for geoengineering. That's fine, repeating this over and over is not helpful I'm not repeating anything "over and over", why are you setting up fake arguments? This thread is to discuss something that you reject out of hand This thread is to discuss geoengeneering and relating issues, whether or not you support it. That's called debate. There are other threads in which to express you opinions about other topics Thank you Read above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Until there is obvious global warming taking place, this is going to fall flat. People might be on the green wagon until they realize it means eating no meat and basically moving everyone out of cold climates into sub-tropical ones. There is no way to get around heating homes and the use of electricity required to habitat cold climates without fossil fuel. We will have to eliminate all person forms of transportation that involves engines or motors. Until we see real visible evidence its going to be political death for anyone to enforce this lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Lots of reading ahead - I agree that it would be nice if we could keep this thread as fact based as possible. The earth arguably have warmed 1 degree and nothing has changed beyond a few glaciers that were melting prior to fossil fuel consumption. Theres you facts. Go ahead and google up something else to scare people with. Referring to this methane release as a disaster when it most likely occured under the glacier my house sits on is ridiculous... Yes my house sits in glacial till that's 800 feet deep. Whos responsible for its demise... ANSWERS, I DEMAND IT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOH Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 lots of the scientific articles require subscriptions/memberships, and I'm not at my work computer, but here are some examples of what is being proposed, and the attendant criticism. http://www.livescien...ng-balloon.html http://www.ametsoc.o...sstatement.html http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/ http://earthsky.org/...t-gobal-warming http://www.pnl.gov/n...ase.aspx?id=778 Phil Rasch has done a lot of work on it and so you can google up his name for more reading. Robert Jackson and Alan Robock also have written a good bit about it. essentially the scientific community is open to the research but also very cautious about the possible ramifications. the first post in this thread should just be deleted--that baseless political rant is lowest common denominator stuff that doesn't belong in a science forum. lol. thanks for responding. clearly the problem isn't serious enough to even discuss geoengineering. enough said. but you wouldn't know that by the threads in the climate change forum... apparently we are headed for doomsday... oh wait, everything is fine, just keeping an eye on things for now. lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaanaaq Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Excellent ! Thanks for the references-Phil Rasch's seems especially interesting. Please post more. lots of the scientific articles require subscriptions/memberships, and I'm not at my work computer, but here are some examples of what is being proposed, and the attendant criticism. http://www.livescien...ng-balloon.html http://www.ametsoc.o...sstatement.html http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/ http://earthsky.org/...t-gobal-warming http://www.pnl.gov/n...ase.aspx?id=778 Phil Rasch has done a lot of work on it and so you can google up his name for more reading. Robert Jackson and Alan Robock also have written a good bit about it. essentially the scientific community is open to the research but also very cautious about the possible ramifications. the first post in this thread should just be deleted--that baseless political rant is lowest common denominator stuff that doesn't belong in a science forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 lol. thanks for responding. clearly the problem isn't serious enough to even discuss geoengineering. enough said. but you wouldn't know that by the threads in the climate change forum... apparently we are headed for doomsday... oh wait, everything is fine, just keeping an eye on things for now. lulz. How are we not discussing it? It is obviously being researched, by people on both sides of the issue. What is wrong with you? We are trying to discuss it but you keep on derailing this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 For those who are interested -- Here is a list (and some links to) publications by the head of our dept at RU, the aforementioned Alan Robock. He does a lot of research into geoengineering and its potential effects. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I knew you'd join in with more info re: Alan. But of course! I, myself, admittedly don't know too much about geoengineering beyond the basics, but he's the first person that comes to mind for me when discussing so I figured sharing his page would be worthy of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Robock's reasoning seems sound. We're already throwing huge amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere via coal / electric installations - and this is probably having the effect of lowering at least NH temperatures on a short time frame at the cost of increasing acidification of everything down wind. Are we more concerned with short term (20 - 100yr) fixes or longer term solutions? If a tipping point has not yet been reached, but is imminent, then a short term solution (possibly with dangerous side effects) is required. If we've already crossed the Rubicon or if there is no tipping point, then longer term solutions with lessened possibility of unintended consequences may be more appropriate. I assume of course that the first step has to be that we quit continuing to foul our own nest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Robock's reasoning seems sound. We're already throwing huge amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere via coal / electric installations - and this is probably having the effect of lowering at least NH temperatures on a short time frame at the cost of increasing acidification of everything down wind. Are we more concerned with short term (20 - 100yr) fixes or longer term solutions? If a tipping point has not yet been reached, but is imminent, then a short term solution (possibly with dangerous side effects) is required. If we've already crossed the Rubicon or if there is no tipping point, then longer term solutions with lessened possibility of unintended consequences may be more appropriate. I assume of course that the first step has to be that we quit continuing to foul our own nest The only solid non-controversial data for past climate is the antarctic ice core. Since we are far outside the envelope of this data, all predictions of the future are controversial. We will have everything from BB predicting a deep freeze to me, looking for beach front property in Siberia. There is no hard data to contradict either position. By in large modeling has failed in the arctic, The failure of so many models puts in doubt the models that have yet to fail. Given this state of affairs, geoengineering will only happen in response to catastrophe, or if it is profitable. It is certain that if we geoengineer, there will be negative unintended consequences. The safest course is to back off from nature. Stop using our space ship like a garbage dump. Please, quit farting in my space suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The only solid non-controversial data for past climate is the antarctic ice core. Since we are far outside the envelope of this data, all predictions of the future are controversial. We will have everything from BB predicting a deep freeze to me, looking for beach front property in Siberia. There is no hard data to contradict either position. By in large modeling has failed in the arctic, The failure of so many models puts in doubt the models that have yet to fail. Given this state of affairs, geoengineering will only happen in response to catastrophe, or if it is profitable. It is certain that if we geoengineer, there will be negative unintended consequences. The safest course is to back off from nature. Stop using our space ship like a garbage dump. Please, quit farting in my space suit. No one is denying that Methane levels are way up, at least I for one am not. I'd rather focus on the results. I also am not predicting a deep freeze, but certainly cooling after the relative base climax in 2010...(1998 still had a colder base value, it was the El Nino that gave it the spike, so it cannot be used as evidence for the end of the warming as some incorrectly do, that happened in 2006). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The only solid non-controversial data for past climate is the antarctic ice core. Since we are far outside the envelope of this data, all predictions of the future are controversial. We will have everything from BB predicting a deep freeze to me, looking for beach front property in Siberia. There is no hard data to contradict either position. By in large modeling has failed in the arctic, The failure of so many models puts in doubt the models that have yet to fail. Given this state of affairs, geoengineering will only happen in response to catastrophe, or if it is profitable. It is certain that if we geoengineer, there will be negative unintended consequences. The safest course is to back off from nature. Stop using our space ship like a garbage dump. Please, quit farting in my space suit. Twenty years ago the opening of either the NW Passage or the NE Passage would have been seen as catastrophic. Last January the schools and government offices in Iqaluit closed because rain made transportation impossible. This summer I drove across western Canada and found the prairies inundated from early May through late June, this is supposed to be the wheat belt! I fear we're simply accepting stranger climatic events as some kind of new norm, and that no event is going to be deemed catastrophic enough for us to act upon, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Twenty years ago the opening of either the NW Passage or the NE Passage would have been seen as catastrophic. Last January the schools and government offices in Iqaluit closed because rain made transportation impossible. This summer I drove across western Canada and found the prairies inundated from early May through late June, this is supposed to be the wheat belt! I fear we're simply accepting stranger climatic events as some kind of new norm, and that no event is going to be deemed catastrophic enough for us to act upon, But you left profit out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Twenty years ago the opening of either the NW Passage or the NE Passage would have been seen as catastrophic. Last January the schools and government offices in Iqaluit closed because rain made transportation impossible. This summer I drove across western Canada and found the prairies inundated from early May through late June, this is supposed to be the wheat belt! I fear we're simply accepting stranger climatic events as some kind of new norm, and that no event is going to be deemed catastrophic enough for us to act upon, I am not saying this is catostrophic but around here people are getting used to what we saw this November and December so far and look at last year as very cold and brutal because it was slightly below normal and a bit above normal snow fall wise. Expectations change after continous warming. This is the 4th warmest year on record in STL and it's not even a news maker anymore. It's becoming normal. And while some freaks like me and some others love snow and cold, most here want 40s 50s and 60s in winter not cold and wintry. So they accept it. The up coming cold snap when we see lows in the upper teens one night and highs in the 30s is a big deal. Last winter was treated like an epic brutal winter. The biggest change is that it doesn't get as cold. It gets close enough to normals to not cause normals to go off the chains for instance the lowest temp in December was 19F the 2nd lowest was 25F. That is pretty warm when considering the average low is 26.9 for the month. But every record low is in single digits, every record low after the 8th is below zero but two. We have Fourteen record lows -5 or colder and 8 that are -10 or colder and three -15 or colder. Folks can call me a warminista or whatever the hell they want, but I will be stunned if we go below -5F again in STL in my life time. We haven't gone below zero since 2000 or 1998 I can't remember. We actually made it to zero last year for a day during the record negative NAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rygar Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I am not saying this is catostrophic but around here people are getting used to what we saw this November and December so far and look at last year as very cold and brutal because it was slightly below normal and a bit above normal snow fall wise. Expectations change after continous warming. This is the 4th warmest year on record in STL and it's not even a news maker anymore. It's becoming normal. And while some freaks like me and some others love snow and cold, most here want 40s 50s and 60s in winter not cold and wintry. So they accept it. The up coming cold snap when we see lows in the upper teens one night and highs in the 30s is a big deal. Last winter was treated like an epic brutal winter. The biggest change is that it doesn't get as cold. It gets close enough to normals to not cause normals to go off the chains for instance the lowest temp in December was 19F the 2nd lowest was 25F. That is pretty warm when considering the average low is 26.9 for the month. But every record low is in single digits, every record low after the 8th is below zero but two. We have Fourteen record lows -5 or colder and 8 that are -10 or colder and three -15 or colder. Folks can call me a warminista or whatever the hell they want, but I will be stunned if we go below -5F again in STL in my life time. We haven't gone below zero since 2000 or 1998 I can't remember. We actually made it to zero last year for a day during the record negative NAO. How old are you? And can we bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I'm certain that Texas ranchers felt that last year's drought was a catastrophe. I'm certain that Canadian wheat farmers considered last year inundation a catastrophe. I suppose that if beef and flour prices reflect these new realities most will consider it an inconvenience. There are any number of things that governments could do that might help.Things as diverse as meeting the Kyoto targets, (some country's have), to increasing the MPG of the next generation of vehicles (Europeans drive forever on a liter of diesel). I doubt these would by themselves be enough to help much - but they've proved painless in those areas where they have been implemented and might at least start us down a path of sustainability. The more I study the effects of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the more I become concerned. I used to smoke the "Brand Preferred by Most Doctors", found out they were lying about the risks. It's easier to quit smoking than to have a cancer operation. Then again, you might live to a ripe old age smoking 3 packs a day. I'ts all a matter of how risk averse you are, and how brave you are when it comes to gambling with your kids lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Seems like Bill Gates and even Murray Edwards (the Tar Sands Magnate) are pushing money at trying to fix the mess with technology. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering?newsfeed=true Possibly a modicum of irony re. Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.