Category Archives: Geoengineering

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine?

Will Earth Henceforth be Known as the Planet with the Reflective Personality?

I thought IPCC stood for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but after reading this article I think perhaps it should be changed Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine. Why say you?

Well, I was taken aback by an article n the Telegraph today titled “IPCC  ‘considering sending mirrors to space to tackle climate change.’ I mean you have to wonder if  they’re all smoking crack? Here’s some snippets from the Telegraph.

Reflective aerosols would be sent into space under a series of radical “geo-engineering” measures being considered by the UN climate science body to tackle climate change, leaked documents disclose.

What are they planning to do send deodorant into outer space? Some aerosol deodorants do use aluminum, which I suppose might reflect all that nasty sunlight. We might even freshen up the planet if we send up a rocket full of the right scent. Imagine not having to buy bathroom spray anymore? I guess this could put Fabreeze out of business, though.

Or, perhaps they could use tiny little mirrors? I mean it really does go hand-in-hand with the crack smoking. They could call it the “smoke and mirrors” solution to climate change, global warming, climate disruption. I think I’ll have to reflect upon this for a while.

The article closes with……..

A spokesman for the IPCC was unavailable for comment.

I wonder what the spoksman was smoking I mean doing?

 

More CO2 Insanity that you can read all about at the source below.

Source: The Telegraph

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Radiation, Science, Solar

Geoengineering: Fertilizing oceans is BS!

It seems that the geoengineering ideas are heading for the crapper where all good BS should go. Yesterday Newsweek reported that geoengineering in general was a bad idea and could cause more problems than it would solve, today we get an item from Reuters titled “Fertilizing oceans seen fruitless in climate fight.” Amazingly, even the UN is on this one as being a bad idea.

Fertilizing the oceans to boost the growth of tiny plants that soak up greenhouse gases is unlikely to work as a way to slow climate change, a U.N.-backed study showed on Monday.

Such “geo-engineering” schemes would be hard to monitor and were likely to store away only small amounts of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, according to a report by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

“Geo-engineering schemes involving ocean fertilization to affect climate have a low chance of success,” according to the 20-page study by the Commission, part of the U.N. Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

It sounds to me like science needs to stop the geoengineering crap that appears to be pushed by big business who stand to make billions from the idea and look elsewhere so solutions to the non-existent anthropogenic global warming problem.

At least the UN comes up with something honest once in awhile. Less CO2 Insanity is nice for a change.

Source: Reuters

 

 


Comments Off on Geoengineering: Fertilizing oceans is BS!

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Science, United Nations

Newsweek: Geoengineering bad

Well, it’s a start, someone at Newsweek is getting a clue that all this geoengineering may cause more problems than it solves. Sharon Begley reports about it in a piece titled Climate Cures Dark Side……

It sounded like a panacea for climate change: “geo-engineering” the atmosphere to block some sunlight and counter global warming. Now scientists scrutinizing the approach say it could produce dangerous cascade effects, severely disrupting weather and agriculture—and might fail to block the worst of the greenhouse effects anyway.

But further study shows worrying pitfalls, according to a series of research papers that will appear in the next issue of Atmospheric Science Letters. The greatest threat is to Asian monsoons, which are driven by the temperature difference between warm land and cooler seas.

You can read about how geoengineering may just cause more floods, monsoons and may not even prevent alleged arctic melting and disrupt things on the planet more than not doing anything would. Geoengineering = CO2 Insanity. Remember…..It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature!

Read all about it at the source below.

Source: Newsweek

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Science, The Met Office

GAO: Major uncertainties remain regarding geoengineering

 

 

Examples of SRM Approaches

 

Yes from the GAO we get this “Major uncertainties remain regarding the scientific, legal, political, economic and ethical implications of researching or deploying geoengineering,” Sounds like someone’s legitimately worried that someone or some agency may go off on their own and create a problem that could be worse than alleged anthropogenic global warming or at best, there’s a gigantic lack of coördination and a gigantic waste of tax dollars. Below is their summary……

Policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering–large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth’s climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts–and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space. GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.

Few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO’s review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results–a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM. Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO’s analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts. According to legal experts and federal officials, the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements’ applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts’ and officials’ views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability. GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated federal approach. OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but provided technical comments.

I went to the whole thing. My first giggle came from this one one…..

A September 2009 study from the Royal Society divided most geoengineering proposals into two main categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). CDR addresses what scientists currently view as the root cause of climate change by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Is this the same “Royal Society” that can’t add and makes basic math errors? I find this rather amazing already. Next we get this one…..

Geoengineering Is an Emerging Field with Major Uncertainties, Including Potential Effects

Experts said that geoengineering is an emerging field, with relatively few experiments or other studies conducted and with major uncertainties remaining. We found that more is known about certain CDR approaches, since related laboratory and field experiments have been conducted, whereas there is limited understanding of other CDR approaches and SRM. Moreover, major uncertainties remain regarding the scientific, legal, political, economic, and ethical implications of researching or deploying geoengineering.Geoengineering Is an Emerging Field with Major Uncertainties, Including Potential Effects.

Experts and Relevant Studies Identified Major Uncertainties that Merit Further Investigation

Experts we interviewed and relevant studies identified several major uncertainties in the field of geoengineering that are in need of further investigation. These uncertainties ranged from important scientific questions for CDR and SRM, to political, ethical, and regulatory issues.

Other highlights are……

  • Unintended consequences
  • Better understanding of the climate and when a “climate emergency” is reached
  • How to best regulate geoengineering internationally
  • Political, economic and ethical concerns
  • Federal Agencies Are Sponsoring Research Relevant to Geoengineering, but There Is No Coordinated Federal Strategy, Making It Difficult to Determine the Extent of Relevant Research
  • Most Federal Research Activities Focused on Mitigation or Basic Science, but a Few Specifically Addressed Geoengineering
  • Existing Federal Efforts Are Not Part of a Coordinated Geoengineering Research Strategy, Making It Difficult to Determine the Full Extent of Relevant Research
  • The Extent to Which Existing Federal Laws and International Agreements Apply to Geoengineering Is Unclear, and Experts and Officials Identified Governance Challenges
  • EPA Officials Stated the Applicability of Existing Laws is Unclear and They Have Not Fully Assessed Their Applicability Because of Limited Geoengineering Activity
  • Experts and Federal Officials Identified International Agreements That Could Apply to Geoengineering, but Their Applicability Is Largely Uncertain
  • Experts and Federal Officials Identified Governance Challenges, but Their Views Varied on the Most Effective Governance Approach

You can read the whole report titled: CLIMATE CHANGE, A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts here (PDF).

Basically, it sounds like we’re not even close to a beginning regarding geoengineering, which is a good thing, especially since we don’t have any anthropogenic global warming to engineer and messing with things will create more problems than it would solve.

No doubt this will be a gigantic opening for a large number of government organizations, research institutes, universities, scientists and of course the United Nations to use this as another excuse to get more grant money for research and allow the UN to ripoff more money from the taxpayers of various countries.

Source: Fox News

Comments Off on GAO: Major uncertainties remain regarding geoengineering

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming

Rich people with fat heads want to play GOD

One just has to love the rich. Many probably not any smarter than anybody else, but they happened to be in the right place at the right time so they made billions of dollars.  Nothing wrong with that. I’m glad they’re successful.

What pisses me off about some of them is that the equate having billions in the bank with having brains that have somehow evolved to where they’re now braniancs who consider themselves smarter than everyone else on the planet. It seems there must be a scientific equation “fw=fh2.”

To translate:

F= fat, W=wallets, H=heads

So the equation really means fat wallets = fat heads squared.

Why the rant? Well, normally I could really give a hoot what people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson do generally speaking, but it seems that we now have those two and some others who are so presumptuous that they think they can play GOD and screw around with the Earth’s climate, which is an audacious plan if I ever heard of one.

Per this article in the Guardian titled “The powerful coalition that wants to engineer the world’s climate” you can see what I am talking about.

Now, a powerful coalition of forces is quietly constellating around the idea of transforming the Earth’s atmosphere by simulating volcanic eruptions to counter the warming effects of carbon pollution. Engineering the planet’s climate system is attracting the attention of scientists, scientific societies, venture capitalists and conservative think tanks. Despite the enormity of what is being proposed — nothing less than taking control of Earth’s climate system — the public has been almost entirely excluded from the planning.

Yes, don’t give the public clue, after all, us peons shouldn’t be involved in such doings as if we don’t have billions in the bank I guess we’re not smart enough to play GOD. Actually I think it may perhaps be more like they’re afraid of what will happen if everyone gets wind of their secret plan.

The article then goes on to make me laugh my ass off with this line.

Moral hazards

Although ideas for climate engineering have been around for at least twenty years, until recently public discussion has been discouraged by the scientific community. Environmentalists and governments have been reluctant to talk about it too. The reason is simple: apart from its unknown side-effects, geoengineering would weaken resolve to reduce carbon emissions.

See, this is where the word audacity comes in.  They actually have the nerve to claim reluctance about this based on the claim it would “weaken resolve to reduce carbon emissions.” I call that ballsy because what we need to do is go back to the same place we always go which is “follow the money.” I’d offer my opinion that the real reason they want this hush-hush is that it might screw up their plans to make billions on carbon trading schemes and selling things that will reduce carbon output or store carbon.

It’s not only the “warmers” who are in favor of this idea either.  It seems the other side of the fence is in on this too, again, follow the money, it will lead you to the source of the problem.

It is strange that geoengineering is being promoted enthusiastically by a number of right-wing think tanks that are active in climate denialism. TheAmerican Enterprise Institute, an influential think tank also part-funded by ExxonMobil that offered US$10,000 to academics for papers debunking the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has launched a high-profile project to promote geoengineering.

Strange? I don’t find it a bit strange, you follow the money, if they can geoengineer the carbon problem away in a hurry, then big oil and big coal can continue to pump out CO2 with impunity.  It’s doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

It seems the people promoting this idea are nuts. If they can’t get any government or governments to go along with playing GOD, then we get this next step they plan on taking.

Faced with this resistance, Wood speculates about getting private funding from a billionaire for an experiment. “As far as I can determine, there is no law that prohibits doing something like this”. Wood is right: there is no law against a private individual attempting to take control of the Earth’s climate.

Imagine a private individual or group of them in control of the planet’s temperature. That would have to give them the ultimate power to control the Earth’s governments and population. Don’t do what I say? OK we’ll turn the temperature down so you have no crops growing until you capitulate then we’ll rectify the problem. Just the threat of that would get the world’s leaders bowing at their feet. Think I am crazy?

Perhaps the wealthy individual he has in mind is Bill Gates, who has covertly been funding geoengineering research for three years with advice from Keith and Caldeira.  They now oversee Gates’ research fund, which has spent some $4.5 million to date

Yes, Bill Gates. Imagine the man who wants to control what software you use to feather his billions having control over your climate? Think all the BS that goes on with Windows is a problem? Just imaging the possibilities.

  • Climate Version 1.00
  • Climate Version 1.01 – corrects defect in Climate 1.00 that caused flooding in Mauritania.
  • Climate Version 1.01.01 – corrects defect in Climate 1.01 that turned the flooding in Mauritania to change to drought.
  • Climate Version 1.01.03 – correct defect in Climate 1.01.01 that caused the glaciers to return in the Himalayas too fast.

I think you get my point that one person or one group of people need not be in control of the Earth’s climate. That’s a disaster waiting to happen. Moreover I don’t even thing they should be experimenting with it without global consensus because it’s going to affect everything on the whole planet. Remember I mentioned Richard Branson?

Gates is not the only billionaire lone ranger who wants to save the planet. Richard Branson has set up his own “war room” to do battle with global warming.

Battle it or profit from it or have the ultimate power trip called controlling the climate? Think I’m off base? Think about the implications.

I personally think it would be a large step in the wrong direction that would make the United Nations attempts at creating a new world order in which they control everything to look rather feeble. If this is allowed to happen it will in my opinion have great potential of leading to one global dictator.

Want Bill Gates or Richard Branson telling you what to do and how much tax money to stuff into his over-inflated bank account? Want to have a new GOD to worship?

I’d suggest Gate or Branson take the name Thor. Thor (from Old Norse Þórr) is a hammer-wielding god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength, destruction, fertility, healing, and the protection of mankind.

Sounds fitting doesn’t it? Perhaps we’re now heading towards Mega CO2 Insanity, or should that perhaps be megalomania?

Source: The Guardian

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Truth Stranger than Fiction