Geoengineering, The IPCC and our Global Future

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

and while cause is something I very strongly disagree with for most of what's being talked about (and the IPCC were specifically restricted to consider as factors in their ongoing work)

Can you cite your source for that statement? Also, I don't think I misinterpreted you on this subject at all.

reply to post by Kali74


No Kali, I'm not digging into more IPCC material for the basic outlines that formed the group and define the work. If others would like that, I suppose I can see about it...but you and I? I'd expect to have the same basic working knowledge and science to be starting from. If that isn't the case and we're not both aware of things like the charter and mission statement of the IPCC for it's purpose under the United Nations? We really don't have too much common ground to go on at all.

It's not that I don't want to be helpful...but I'm sick of the silly points to establish. If one says the sky is blue and that color is a product of light behavior through the layers of Earths atmosphere? Someone else will demand a source or say it's hogwash and BS.........even if we all just took a science class explaining the process or ..more directly to this, been on other threads where that very thing has been the subject of discussion and proven to all present for at least having basis to claim.

Feel free to disprove anything you feel is wrong here though. I very much welcome criticism with factual support and basis on a factual thread ...but "Pics or it didn't happen" is best left on other threads, IMO....especially when neither of us are new or naive on this topic.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I still just don't see this (GW) as a runaway freight train about to run off the cliff, in fact, there are enough sources still pointing to a return to cooling, or the beginning of a trend at least.

But what was it that made you turn 180 and believe that we are on the path to doom? (that may be a bit melodramatic, but you kind of gave that impression)

reply to post by network dude

I still just don't see this (GW) as a runaway freight train about to run off the cliff, in fact, there are enough sources still pointing to a return to cooling, or the beginning of a trend at least.

Yeah, I agree there are a number pointing to cooling, and along side what is admittedly more saying warming and it's why you'll notice general language has changed to climate change. Which, unfortunately, IS accurate I believe.

I have no idea when I'll have something together on it in a way to present and make sense of in a thread. It's a very complex thing and what literally was finding a couple things in recent science, with recent work being done that made years of other little things click.

To give some idea tho..

I think one of the biggest things we have right now for concerns aren't gasses in the high atmosphere, but how some get there. The gas isn't CO2 either. Methane is the issue, IMO and it's a far greater one...but hard to explain without making a small book to cover why it makes sense and actually matters. The primary thing on that, was learning how man produces it, and in just what sheer mind numbing quantity that happens in, in such even coverage across the whole planet, daily. That's what has changed so fast, I believe.

Related and perhaps connected are the ocean gyres and how a whole system may be showing signs of breaking down...if only a bit. However, the engine of the planets weather may define 'a little bit' worlds apart from how we'd think of it. No pun intended.

I'm afraid more extreme weather to both ends, not to one in particular and average weather (for one region) being extreme for where it happens may be more the norm.

^^ That's my opinion and what may be put into another thread at some future point.. Unlike the more straight forward info in the OP pages, just to be careful about keeping the two separate.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Methane as of yet isn't the dominant problem. Should we continue to warm more methane will release and will take over CO2 as the dominant GHG forcing.

Oh and sorry bout my last response, having some issues lately with brain fry (taking classes myself, plus work, plus teenage boy, plus typical illnesses resulting from working with children).

reply to post by Kali74


The problem is methane will continue to release whether we're in cold or hot climate. Short of hard freeze conditions, I think we're stuck with that gas on growing scale.

* A quick note on this.... Methane is not one of the gasses being looked at by the UN International Panel on Climate Change (At least not in Lima, Peru and at this meeting)..therefore, not technically a part of the thread here.

I may..(or may not) make another very extensive one of what is mentioned a couple posts above this one and dealing with methane and/or the natural cycles of the land/oceans. I'm not personally addressing it any further on this one though, as it actually starts to detract from (not support) the overall OP/Thread that was made on the IPCC and Geoengineering ideas discussed in Peru.

Great summary Wrabbitski.................
I have to throw in my very general impression of the situation...
GW is a fiction that is a creation of Disaster Capitalists.......
Vast fortunes will be made by a few who will just happen to belong to the already bloated and greedy ruling elite.
The earth, our mother is far more capable of dealing with the vermin who inhabit it than the vermin are of controlling her cycles.
The forests we destroyed, the gashes , and wounds of industry to her body, all will be mitigated by natural reactions to the damages and changes we have caused......
The source of GW is NOT truly understood by any branch of science yet....and immediate and global action would be very premature and possibly even more damaging than what is going on now......
War is no longer a viable option for milking humanity of its wealth......we are too capable of destroying ourselves irrevocably...
Thus the PTB seek for NEW avenues to bring FEAR into our consciousness and thus facilitate the hegemony that now controls the
bulk of our civilisations created wealth.
GW is simply another brainwashing effort to put humanity in a percieved position of neediness and subservient to these same powers.
It is my impression that some solutions to ecological problems are simply too cheap and effective to be considered, and we will be forced to accept far more expensive and less effective remedies in order that the PTB enjoy maximum control as well as profits...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm not sure that's true. Wasn't one of the arguments against CDR specifically about not addressing other GHGs? I wonder if there's a browser addon that let's you search PDF's, lol. I may later, but feeling lazy atm to comb through it all again.

ETA: Nvm found out how to without an extension.

From your source:

Biomass Burial is an alternative which involves burying wood in anoxic environments (e.g. deep in the soil,
Zeng, 2008) where decomposition would be much slower. Estimates of the size of the sink are disputed but are
likely to be limited by the cost of burial and competition for biomass with other approaches (e.g. Biochar and
BECCS). Lenton (2010) estimates a potential carbon sink of less than 1 GtC/yr, and warns of the possibility of
counter-productive emissions of methane from anaerobic decomposition.

Carbon dioxide is not
the only long-lived greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and air removal can also be envisaged for methane (Boucher and
Folberth, 2009) or other gases

Recognizing that global scale climate engineering is also likely to have some noticeable unintended consequences, the
proposed justification has primarily focused on its use in response to a climate emergency; that is, to invoke climate
engineering only when there is clear evidence of an impending or immediately past exceedance of a threshold that would
lead to runaway warming or other very significant consequence. The most discussed of the possible emergencies have been
a methane burst as a result of the rapid thawing of permafrost and/or clathrates trapped in the sediments of the
continental shelves, the rapid loss of ice mass from the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets, collapse of the Amazon
rainforest, or greatly accelerated, runaway warming. The proposed invocation of climate engineering would be rapid and
strong, taking the global average temperature, for example, back to much lower levels. It seems to me there are several
problems with this formulation of, essentially, holding back climate engineering until it may be too late to reverse the
disastrous changes. An implicit assumption in this approach is that climate is reversible, and this is not at all clear. In
addition, adaptation is likely to have spread out the range of optimal temperatures for various societal and environmental
systems, such that a sudden, sharp cooling might be very disruptive.

The potential of
other unintended consequences -- such as the generation of nitrous oxide from organic matter degradation at depth, the
generation of dimethyl sulfide and methane or the growth of phytoplankton which has the capability of releasing harmful
toxins -- has much larger uncertainty at present. Some of these consequences are undesirable and on a large scale may be
considered unacceptable.

Not all the ideas in the report were bad...and Carbon Dioxide may well be a bit of an issue.

After all, burning acres a minute of the rain forests was a serious cause with running counters when I was a kid ...and Reagan was President back then. That 'burning the lungs out of the planet' (and cutting) business has been going on for at least 30 years. Some in the name of local development and much for export of raw materials to the industrialized world ... as well as cattle to feed our insatiable desire for hamburgers and don't forget beans.

That does probably make CO2 somewhat of an issue because we have no TREES left to breathe it...given it's oxygen to plants, as we see our literal oxygen produced from them.

That really is a solvable problem though. Honestly. The answer is even quite obvious. It lay in those vertical organic thingys... Umm.. with a big stalk or trunk in the middle and leaves and... Oh.. Trees! (sly grin)

Sorry.. Couldn't resist... I just sat through an ABC News special in class from 2007/08 on 'Global Warming' seriously proposing active man made filters, much larger than windmills, to physically and chemically scrub the air itself. (I think back to the 'Hello McFly' moment in BTF movies) Something about scale just isn't working here... The most obvious answer is to just stop deforesting whole segments of nations like erasing terrain in Sim-City ...but that's too obvious for most, of course.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


True enough about the trees. I saw an analogy just now that I thought appropriate for your last post.

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Let's scale that down to 46 years. We have been here for 4 hours. Our industrial revolution began 1 minute ago. In that time we have destroyed 50% of the world's forests.

So personally, I think yes... cutting down that much forest has upset our carbon cycle but it's not rectified by planting new trees. Even if we could plant a tree for every tree cut down, or even went as far as to actually replace all the old forests acre for acre, it wouldn't be enough. For one thing young trees don't absorb nearly the same amount of carbon dioxide that old trees do. But the other factor is, humans are digging up old stored carbon, burning it, and putting the molecules up into the atmosphere. Had all the old trees been around, maybe it would have taken hundreds of years more to get where we are now but it still would have happened.

You can't add a significant amount of any molecule to the atmosphere without it having an effect regardless of the catalyst. At this point all we have to left to hope for is that climate sensitivity is over estimated and/or we figure out how to negate the causes without creating a whole new slew of problems.

reply to post by Kali74

You can't add a significant amount of any molecule to the atmosphere without it having an effect regardless of the catalyst. At this point all we have to left to hope for is that climate sensitivity is over estimated and/or we figure out how to negate the causes without creating a whole new slew of problems.

You'll pardon my optimism to retain a little more hope than that..especially on the Carbon issue as a very specific one. We can go into how it's been higher before....and it has. We can go into historic ice core records showing carbon may or may not be a causative factor in climate change vs. a result of it. These are the points where debate exists...the science is anything but settled and there is much left to determine and be certain of.

The problem is..to a large segment in this topic, there is not now ..nor has there EVER really been ANY room for question outside the Official line of crap and the fact that, according to that line, nothing OUTSIDE that consideration can be or will be allowed as a factor of measurable significance.

It's what makes it maddening... I adjust my views and I adjust my thinking as I learn more and I obtain new facts to supplement old ones. So many I debate with seem physically incapable of reversing even an inch, on even the most side line of issues ...as if giving an inch (even when called for) would be giving away the whole debate...

A silly silly position but one I'm starting to find in academia as well, not JUST the internet, where I expect to find 'facts' given as absolutes when no such thing can or ever will exist in science for this form of data.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


SRM - solar radiation management - is, in the humble opinion of some, another gambit to ignore current stratospheric emissions and to actually, in some way, make yet another pollution by-product work within the economic system. Who wins? Polluting, profit-seeking corporations. Who loses? We all do, including the corporations.

It was appalling, to me, to see that the IPCC worked with the airlines in coming up with their assessments in those areas. I would have liked a more ivory tower approach.

Geo-engineering, the whole of it, is, to me, such a drama and truly a case of "when first we practice to deceive" and the consequences for our planet and us.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You'll pardon my optimism to retain a little more hope than that..especially on the Carbon issue as a very specific one.

At current emission levels there is extremely little hope that 2C warmer by the end of the century will not be reality, and many climate scientists feel that is a very conservative estimate. Many now think we will hit 2C by mid century and 4C by end of century. 2C will suck and require the entire planet to adjust, migrate and some species such a coral may go extinct. 4C begins mass extinctions though humans will most likely survive if we cooperate. As I said before, my only remaining optimism is that, hopefully climate sensitivity has been overestimated.

We can go into how it's been higher before....and it has.

Not in human or much of the species on Earth existence. Rapid climate change has never worked out well for the species that experienced it.

We can go into historic ice core records showing carbon may or may not be a causative factor in climate change vs. a result of it.

I won't get into that debate, it could be so... but even if so it's not a great argument against AGW. Why? Because it truly doesn't matter if CO2 rose first or temperatures did because once additional CO2 or any GHG is introduced to the atmosphere and begins accumulating vs being re-sequestered, that overtakes whatever caused temperatures to rise initially ie an el Nino or orbital forcing.

That flawed argument ultimately supposes that greenhouse gases behave differently in different situations.

These are the points where debate exists...the science is anything but settled and there is much left to determine and be certain of.

They are very subtle points in scope of the overall picture. Let's expand on what I said above and put it in future terms... let's say over the next 20 years our total warming has increased to 2.8F, the greenland ice sheet has been significantly reduced and we're seeing more land than before, permafrost is thawing at unprecedented rates and methane has overtaken CO2 as the dominant forcing of warming. At that point, you could technically say AGW is over and name it something appropriate to the dominant forcing which would be methane plumes from thawed permafrost (I'm not good with names so I dunno).

the science is anything but settled and there is much left to determine and be certain of.

That really isn't true. In order for that to be true, it would require a source not thought of yet, a factor that we can't see.

The problem is..to a large segment in this topic, there is not now ..nor has there EVER really been ANY room for question outside the Official line of crap

Line of crap?

and the fact that, according to that line, nothing OUTSIDE that consideration can be or will be allowed as a factor of measurable significance.

Considered and ruled out is not the same thing as having not ever considered.

So many I debate with seem physically incapable of reversing even an inch, on even the most side line of issues ...as if giving an inch (even when called for) would be giving away the whole debate...

What would you like me to concede on? You do realize that requires dishonesty on my part. And in the broader scope, requires science to be dishonest.

reply to post by Kali74


It's odd as my thinking has evolved on this and really over just a matter of weeks. It's also rare but sometimes amazing for what I find when jumping behind a media story to go digging for the source and basic foundation stuff. Usually, there isn't much to find..but just occasionally, there is enough to make for an epiphany moment. Climate Change has been an example of that and one of just a couple in recent memory for me.

The above has been true despite being in an enviro science class that is more mushy propaganda ..and I mean factually inaccurate stuff here.. than science. I'll benefit from the science of it and I'll benefit from the tours of infrastructure like the waste and power plants. It's important to know how that whole process really (as in...there it physically is to view and understand) works. What is odd tho, is most of what I've come to focus on here and learn more about is self taught and from scientific/boring/dry levels of reading. That's where the most interesting stuff is, as this thread tends to show, IMO.

---

We're on the same side of the street, even if we're now on distant ends of it, in very real/figurative ways.

I don't think there is any doubt on the climate change now, with change being the operative word here. I've been debating the other side of it long enough to well know the patterns to definitively say more than 'well, it's cooling there BECAUSE it's warm over here and warming causes cooling' just aren't there. We're seeing extremes on both ends and violence in weather is also remarkable. It's also coming with what is likely natural cycling ...tho a few more years to be certain if that's passing or not. The drought conditions we're seeing mimic the 1930's and other clear periods both before and since.


What I'm really interested in is keeping it real and keeping it open to figuring out what, if anything, can be isolated as causes, and maybe something done about. Carbon is an issue, as I noted before, and especially since we're determined to burn out the planets lungs. Carbon (and water) also deposits from space dust....were you aware of that? The research from the University of Hawaii and other Space/Climate research sources has been breaking across the last month or so for what degree and definitive nature of the issue. ......it means Earth isn't a closed system to anything like the degree we've often assumed it is from the dumbed down public material.

Speaking of dumbed down...

Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London and Los Angeles.

Source: National Geographic

Most people would call that a reasonable source and decent for accuracy. It's such crap it floats higher than their ocean rise, quite frankly.

Global Sea Rise Simulation Map

This is just one example, but most of the general public would call NatGeo a solid source. Whatever we may feel, it's a reasonable statement for the general public. So when they read that 7 Meters is enough to submerge Los Angeles and London, they believe it's a reasonable possibility, if nothing more. They're simply wrong. The Sim data above is based on simple elevation and math with data from NASA. Here is what it shows for Los Angeles in 3 stages...

(Present Day - 0 Meter Rise)
(7 Meter / 23 Feet)
(40 Meter / 131 Feet)

It's not that sea levels may not or are not rising. They may well be (It's still in 'studys show' stage, but I'll grant it's happening and has been at least 100 years). It's not that rising sea levels won't be a bad thing. They will be. Ask Tonga or the Phillippines, for example. They won't fare as well as Los Angeles with far lesser rise.

The above is where I think the biggest breakdown in the whole debate comes, and it's both sides...the more I get into really just reading facts and basic 'it is what it is' results to base my own judgements on. Both sides fudge results for how they are presented. Neither side is innocent when it comes to ignoring some factors while focusing on others as if whatever the topic is (Carbon, Methane, Nitrous or other direct factors) has only one main cause or issue.

Carbon figures in..it's just the lesser for direct impact and frankly, lesser we can directly do something about. There are, in my opinion, more dangerous and more prolific gasses which are not natural to find in the sheer scale they are produced now. Some natural..most not, and with ripple effects into other processes that are also visible, IMO, and support the fact the balance is blown.

So it's the lack of scope locking to carbon and using real and supportable stuff I'm most focused on myself because the more that people are finding in cutting research in this area, the more it's looking like that comfy period of calm while the balance shifts may not last much longer. Colder Winters, Hotter Summers ..and storm warmings to really pay attention to all inbetween. That too, is just another interpretation, of course.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


these people openly admit to doing it, you can go to their web site and check them out they are doing it world wide!!! weathermodification.com...

reply to post by peewee2565


Thank you for that additional resource. I'll check it a bit closer when I have time to read the links, but it looks like something I'd have found useful in writing this thread. I wish I'd found it sooner.

peewee2565
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

these people openly admit to doing it, you can go to their web site and check them out they are doing it world wide!!! weathermodification.com...

Are you familiar with cloud seeding?
this explains it.

It's not secret, and it's been done for a long time. Since the 1960's.

Awesome sources for reference.

I see plenty people on these boards however still seem to deny that governments or private interests are actively modifying the weather. Why in light of the factual documents represented here do people decry that weather modification is fantasy?

Also it may worth be looking at the impact of Japanese whaling vessels and how this is potentialy leading to an increase in plankton through the population depletion of whales. Plankton makes clouds you see and whales eat em so I imagine maintaining that synergy could be pretty important.

Bellor
Awesome sources for reference.

I see plenty people on these boards however still seem to deny that governments or private interests are actively modifying the weather.

I'm pretty sure that you haven't seen that at all. Indeed, I bet you cannot quote where anyone has said this.

Why in light of the factual documents represented here do people decry that weather modification is fantasy?

Nobody does. What we DO see it's lots of excited silliness (see just up the board a bit) by people who think that weather modification, aka cloud seeding, is the same as geoengineering, and that BOTH of those are the same as chemtrails.

None of which can be proven AT ALL. Because while the first two things are real, but different, the latter exists only because of people's ignorance and gullibility.

Also it may worth be looking at the impact of Japanese whaling vessels and how this is potentialy leading to an increase in plankton through the population depletion of whales. Plankton makes clouds you see and whales eat em so I imagine maintaining that synergy could be pretty important.

Possibly, I think that whaling should be ended anyway but that's a different conversation.

Bellor

I see plenty people on these boards however still seem to deny that governments or private interests are actively modifying the weather.

Can you provide a link to one of those posts?