Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 11/10/2014 1:51:09 AM PST by Libloather
**SNIP**
Dr. Schuiling’s idea is one of several intended to reduce levels of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, so the atmosphere will trap less heat. Other approaches, potentially faster and more doable but riskier, would create the equivalent of a sunshade around the planet by scattering reflective droplets in the stratosphere or spraying seawater to create more clouds over the oceans. Less sunlight reaching the earth’s surface would mean less heat to be trapped, resulting in a quick lowering of temperatures.
No one can say for sure whether geoengineering of any kind would work. And many of the approaches are seen as highly impractical. Dr. Schuiling’s, for example, would take decades to have even a small impact, and the processes of mining, grinding and transporting the billions of tons of olivine needed would produce enormous carbon emissions of their own.
Beyond the practicalities, many people view the idea of geoengineering as abhorrent — a last-gasp, Frankenstein-like approach to climate change that would distract the world from the goal of eliminating the emissions that are causing the problem in the first place. The climate is a vastly complex system, so manipulating temperatures may also have consequences, like changes in rainfall, that could be catastrophic or benefit one region at the expense of another.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Most people will tell you that Oxygen is the most prevalent gas in our atmosphere. Which, of course, is completely wrong.
That is true. Mass insanity rules the day.
I will believe in Global Warming when the LibTards move American Coastal cities inland. Coastal cities such as: NYC, LA, Santa Barbara, San Fran, Seattle, DC, Boston, Miami, you have the idea!
1
But it's best to spend a few trillion dollars on such schemes because science.
Water vapor is a vastly more effective green-house gas than is carbon-dioxide. But the feedback effects are very complex. For example, water vapor should have a green-house effect, but it also condenses, forming clouds, which give an earth-shading effect, and water freezes to form snow, which is another great reflector. These processes swamp any CO2 effect. It is clear that the models cannot handle this complexity accurately, and that the predictive value of the models for several decades has been unimpressive to useless, and certainly not sufficient for making policy decisions.
The final reason for abandoning the global warming hysteria is that the countries of the world will not obey a regimen which, at tremendous cost to themselves, will yield a barely noticeable result. Beijing, capital of the country which soon will have the biggest economy in the world, will not even clean up its own air pollution!
Will countries which stumble when trying to control obvious problems like malaria, Ebola, the Russians, restraint of Islamic terrorism, merely balancing national budgets — will these countries, I say, suddenly unite to fight a dubious climate problem? We are speaking of governments which are largely corrupt, cannot control crime, cannot protect their borders, are either threatening or threatened by their neighbors, &c., &c., are they going to be competent to control the thermostat of the Earth’s climate? Even presuming that they knew what they were doing?
Of course not.
No argument from me.
Countries, and individuals, are blithe about dismissing the costs of “controlling global warming,” or anything else for that matter, up to the point they suddenly realize the cost, or a lot of it, will be paid by them.
Suddenly their POV changes. People are always insouciant about spending what they think of as other people’s money.
Temperature increase leading CO2 increase long term, Hmmmm? How do we explain that? What about the last 15+ years of temperature data? How is that inconvenient fact explained?
If they'll just wait a decade or so, the sun's decreasing magnetic field will lead to an increase of cloud cover on this planet, which will lead to cooling, and the cooler oceans will reabsorb the CO2 they have been releasing for the last century.
“Temperature increase leading CO2 increase long term, Hmmmm? How do we explain that?”
As I understand it, that is no longer the prevailing opinion. Regardless, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the current situation. Further, it says nothing about whether the increase from ~280 PPM to 400 PPM has anything to do with humans.
“What about the last 15+ years of temperature data? How is that inconvenient fact explained?”
I think it’s natural variability, dominated by the AMO and PDO. Looking forward, I think solar variability is going to play a big part over the next 20+ years, and I expect temperatures to decline. We are entering a solar Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton or Maunder.
I’m of the overall optimistic viewpoint that the increased CO2 will be good in terms of stopping the next Ice Age. I hope the increased sea levels won’t get too crazy. It is looking like, due entirely to market forces, that CO2 generation will largely cease this century due to more cost-effective energy sources like solar/nuclear/fusion.
Global Warming on Free Republic
“Looking forward, I think solar variability is going to play a big part over the next 20+ years, and I expect temperatures to decline. We are entering a solar Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton or Maunder.” With this I can agree. It is a matter of is it going to be a Dalton or Maunder?
LOL - or they could plant trees...
“The problem with their theories is simply what you say. Any complex system has multiple feedback loops, some positive, some negative.”
In this article they try to use the same argument both ways. The climate is too complex for us to know what to do to geo-engineer it, but simple enough for us to predict what will happen with it.
Both statements cannot be correct. It it is too complex to engineer, it is too complex to predict.
The two are of course connected. The first requirement to engineer someting is to be able to predict how it will react to your modifications.
Exactly right.
You cannot “cut and try” with the climate, when you have to work for 10 to 20 years to implement a scheme, then wait another 20 to see if you had any effect.
Right. Except I think it would be more like 100 years minimum before you’d really know whether your efforts had worked as intended. And even then you’d be deceiving yourself, because your “success” or “failure” might instead be due to factors you have no control over and indeed no knowledge of.
Human control of climate I suspect is indeed possible. I just think we are centuries away from being able to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.