Geoengineering - Another Lunatic Answer to Global Warming

'Tangled ball of issues': Why geoengineering our climate raises serious ethical, scientific challenges

Some believe solar radiation management could stop the world

from catastrophic warming

Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News 

The skies over the northeast Pacific Ocean are seen streaked with clouds that form around the particles in a ship's exhaust. One method of geoengineering borrows from this phenomenon. Some researchers argue it could be used to stop the planet from catastrophic levels of warming. (NASA/MODIS)

As global carbon emissions continue to rise despite warnings from the scientific community, there's been increased interest in a controversial method to potentially mitigate the rise in Earth's temperature: Geoengineering. 

The conversation around geoengineering — or the deliberate manipulation of our environment — is gaining traction as climate projections remain dire.

Dire, but absurdly so.

Scientists, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have repeatedly cautioned that emissions need to be rapidly cut in order to keep the world from warming 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial times — the threshold that would result in widespread damage and suffering.

But with emissions still on the rise, some researchers are now calling for a closer look at more experimental measures, ones that could be pursued alongside emissions cuts.

One of the more popular forms of geoengineering is known as solar radiation management, or SRM.

But SRM is fraught with questions — both ethical and scientific.

There is more on this nonse.... ah, story, at CBC News, although I'm not sure it qualifies as news. 

Geoengineering, mostly cloud seeding, does address some of the real causes of global warming, not CO2 or other GHGs, (the far-and-away number one GHG is water vapour), but a decrease of clouds in the atmosphere because of solar activity. Solar activity, sunspots, create solar winds which intercept interstellar winds that contribute to create clouds. When sunspot activity is low, there is more cloudiness and cooler temperatures. That's why the coolest known periods in history are associated with solar minimums. 

This geoengineering idea actually seems to acknowledge this theory and proposes a possible solution. But it won't work! It might even appear to work but in the end it will probably be worse than anything the hyperbolic IPCC has imagined so far.

They are thinking of adding sulfur, or calcium carbonate to the atmosphere to increase cloud amounts. 

What will that do when it mixes with the air that we breath? Will we actually be able to breath it? 

What will it do when it rains on the earth and on our lakes and oceans? Will it affect the acidity or alkaline levels? Will it kill a bunch of fish leaving rivers and lakes dead? 

Will the surfer collect in our forests and turn our trees into giant match-heads? 

One of the great fears about global warming is the flooding of coast-lands. Most coastal flooding occurs near the mouths of rivers when river levels are high, tides are high and storm-surges occur.

Seeding clouds will result in sometimes significantly more rainfalls. These rainfall must eventually find their way to the ocean causing higher river and lake levels on their way. When they happen to reach the mouths of the great rivers, you better pray that it doesn't coincide with a storm or there will be flooding like we've never seen.

I question whether seeding clouds in one area will reduce the number of clouds in another area downstream. If you are removing moisture from the air, then fewer clouds can form downstream, increasing the solar radiation, the temperatures, and decreasing the rain/snowfalls. 

If the IPCC really wants to do something constructive, they should begin studying the real causes of global warming - sunspot activity, solar winds, the tilting of the earth on its axis (notice the rapidly moving magnetic north pole), and the course of the earth around the sun. Is anyone even measuring that?

Svensmark - Basically, his theory is that cosmic rays cause ions in the atmosphere which eventually contribute to cloud formation. Sunspot activity acts as an umbrella reducing the cosmic rays that reach the earth, thereby reducing cloud cover, resulting in warming temperatures. Periods of minimum sunspot activity correlate well with reduced cosmic rays and temperatures.

The IPCC was formed by the WMO and UNEP in 1988 with the mandate to study the man's affects on climate change. They were not given the authority to study non-anthropogenic global climate change, so they don't. Their computer models are restricted to perceived man-made effects. Hence, they ignore the main causes of global warming and amplify the anthropogenic effects. This is not science; this was a political decision. 

The Great Global Warming Swindle

This video is a little dated and more than an hour long but is the best explanation yet of the science behind global warming. It also reveals the tragic consequences of the climate hysteria movement that you will never hear on mainstream media. 

In the video you will hear from more than a dozen scientists, many of whom are world renowned, award-winning, scientists among the most preeminent in their fields. Some have left the IPCC for their unscientific reports, and the use of their names even when they disagreed with the reports. 

It explains the impossibility of CO2 being the progenitor of climate change, and what are the real drivers of global warming. 

Grab a tea and enjoy - it's worth the watch.

As the last ten minutes or so reports, 3rd world countries will undoubtedly remain in poverty for much longer than they need to if fossil fuels were available to them. One of the consequences of poverty is a dramatically higher level of child sexual abuse. Child rape, child brides, forced marriages are far more prevalent in poorer countries than in developed countries.

One of the more recent consequences of the climate hysteria movement is the dramatically increased anxiety that it is producing in children. Leaving kids questioning whether there is any point to life is extremely damaging and a cruel form of child abuse.

Another consequence is the politicization of science. No longer is it open to debate or rigorous testing by other scientists. Questioning science, even when the science is wrong, is no longer acceptable and results in very unscientific name-calling and exclusion of such scientists from IPCCs massive research funding. This is not a sane or mature way to teach children to communicate and make decisions.

ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS:

“OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.

There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.

Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.

Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).

Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.

DATA FALSIFICATION

When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).

But now we have Nakamura.

The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.

Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”

Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.

As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.

The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.

NAKAMURA ON CO2

He writes:

“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle — arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.

Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):

“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”

SOLAR FORCING

Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.

As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:

“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

The cold times appear to be returning, in line with historically low solar activity.

NASA has warned that this next solar cycle (25) will be “the weakest of the past 200 years”:

Meaning, the sun will be the weakest it's been since the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s. This period was the end of The Little Ice Age which began with the Maunder Minimum, a period of more than 150 years with very little sunspot activity.