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. 

Politically Correct CBC Panel Laugh at Science That Mitigates Global Warming Ideology

video 11:06  segment referred to below is about 04:00 - 04:30

CBC's At Issue political panel deposed last night's French Language debate among leaders of Canadian political parties, ahead of the October 21st federal election. It was the second debate featuring the presence of Maxime Bernier of the upstart People's Party of Canada. Max is a conservative and decidedly too conservative for the Conservatives. 

While making a good impression on the panelists in this debate, he is largely dismissed as being too far 'out there' to be a serious candidate. 2 of the 3 panelists, as well as host Rosie Barton, laughed at the idea that Bernier wanted to see research into the effect of the sun on climate change. 

These politically-correct, superior women thought him a fool for such a stupid idea. The science is closed; it's all about CO2! What they don't know was that they were dismissing many decades of scientific research - Old Science - the kind where you published your findings and your methods. New Science seems to like to keep their computer models secret - that's not scientific!

Before the IPCC decided, on very little science, that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses were entirely responsible for global warming, almost all climate scientists believed the sun was the main progenitor of climate change. 

The two factors mostly associated with climate were the distance from the sun on the Earth's orbit, and the amount of sunspot activity. Little ice ages in the past 400 years have been directly linked to minimal sunspot activity, like the Maunder Minimum. 

Other research

There is a lot of research out there that contradicts or mitigates anthropogenic global warming, but you never hear of them because mainstream media won't give them a second of consideration. They are too busy finding their daily dose of climate alarmism, and will not, by policy, broadcast anything that might suggest otherwise. They won't even look at it. They completely dismiss anything that is not politically correct.

The IPCC decision to blame global warming on man-made greenhouse gasses was much less a scientific decision than a political decision. Since the early 1990's the IPCC has been funding only research that supports climate change alarmism. People who research processes that might counter or mitigate the alarmist ideology are defunded and thrown under the bus.

Professor Murry Salby's research into the distant past revealed that global temperature peaks preceded global CO2 peaks by about 800 years. He has been let go by the university he worked for and is struggling to find another that will support him. Those who might counter the climate science alarmist ideology are basically blacklisted. That's why most scientists agree with the IPCC ideology, if they ever want research money, they had better. And if their research doesn't support the ideology, they can forget about ever getting another grant.

Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. German climate scientist Hans von Storch also agreed with some of Salby’s findings. Hans von Storch is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. 

He was interviewed in 2013 by Der Spiegel magazine (see blue font near bottom).

Just two years ago, meteorologists were being sure to tell their audiences not to blame single extreme weather events on global warming. Now, every extreme event is blamed on global warming when, in fact, they may have very little to do with it.

Essay: Solar Cycle Wave Frequency Linked to Jet Stream Changes - Dramatic Weather Events

Top Scientist Resigns from Post - Admits Global Warming is a Scam

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

Recent articles from China, Russia and Kobe University in Japan support the sun's activities as being the main progenitor in climate change. They all are more concerned about global cooling than global warming as the sun is expected to go into a phase of low sunspot activity.

Are we there yet?

For what it's worth, I have been saying for 30 years that man has contributed to global warming. I have also been saying that man is not the only contributor and that the science isn't there to prove how much man is contributing and how much is being driven by solar activity, magnetosphere changes and probably other processes we haven't even thought of yet. Modern climate scientists are trying to squeeze two dozen eggs into a one dozen egg container and are ignoring the mess that is spilling out. Modern climate science is still not there yet.

Child abuse

My concern is mostly about children who are being literally traumatized by daily articles telling them the world will end before they even become adults. This is madness and child abuse. They are abusing children for their very questionable cause. The effects of taking away a child's future will become very noticeable as this generation reaches adulthood, and it will not be good.

PCMadness

Bernier wants to start a dialogue on many issues that trouble Canadian society, but politically correct people think the most evil thing in the world is to talk about what they have already decided is true. They don't realize that preventing people from talking about issues in a meaningful way is what tends to create extremists; not Islamic extremists but far-right extremists. Liberals tend to think that talking about something will make it worse, but not talking about important issues just disenfranchises a whole sector of people. It may result in them acting out in violent ways, just to get the attention of the government.