The Risks of Geoengineering

An article about a "Proposed Plan" that would basically cause catostrophic disaster followed by the moronic statement:

"Yes, but let's not stop the good ideas from flooding in. Here are some other tech-based schemes to save the planet."

Would you people PLEASE (and I'm begging you)
Get Off Our Planet and quit trying to save us....

Your solutions are gonna Kill us All

Exactly, these so called solutions are the only problems. I think these people need to calm down, especially since the temperatures have decreased since 1998.

These "solutions" all too often are designed to fix the consequences of modern (some even dare call it "civilized") human behavior while allowing us to believe that we can continue with the behavior that caused the problems in the first place.

We cannot have 6.5 billion people on this planet (1), all enjoy a wasteful life-style like North Americans or Europeans (2), and have enough energy, food, and resources to survive (3). It is just not possible. Only two of those options are possible at one time and the third has to be reduced.

Solutions that remove symptoms cannot replace solutions that eliminate the cause for the symptoms. How about eliminating the tech-based problems rather than searching for tech-based solutions for the tech-based problems and hoping that the tech-based solutions do not cause more problems? How about an intelligent, far-sighted, humanistic approach, rather than the continued convenient approach that supports the status quo?

There are many solutions that cause no problems and result in great positive change. They are just not as much fun and require dramatic changes in the life of anyone used to living big.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Yeah, I love these crazy environmental wackos. Always love to tell you how evil you are for... well, living. If there are too many people on the Earth, then do something about it yourself! You can make it one less!

Good point, menar003

"Save the planet - Commit suicide."?

Well, this environmental wacko here (me) hopes to really be a wacko and be completely wrong about what I see coming. I cannot even tell you how much more I would prefer to "live" the way you seem to see it and believe what I prefer to believe. I am sure many millions of other people would "like" to do this too. Who would not?

Scientific thinking sucks if you just want to live without caring about the consequences of your actions.

In any case, I can assess risk rationally as well as I can assess efficiency of actions and killing myself (=someone who has little impact on the environment considering I live in North America and promote better ways for others) has much less impact than staying alive, dealing with people like you, and keeping up the good fight.

Sorry to disappoint. Party on!

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

My advice to the self-anoited "environmentalists" who want to save the world: Don't just do something -- stand there!

If there were more rational thought (yes, even "scientific thinking" KarstenHWeiss), and less emoting, we wouldn't continue to make matters far worse.

We don't need to wait for geoengineering to mess things up in the name of "environmentalism". The mad rush to convert food to fuels; as mandated by Congress; is already causing higher food prices, hunger and food riots around the world. If we had thought rationally; rather than acting from fears created by the propaganda of global warming alarmists; we would have increased R&D into viable, sustainable biomas (e.g. celluostic ethanol) that wouldn't use food crops -- when the new technology was developed, we would then proceed to implement it. Instead, we rushed madly forward to divert our food supply into fuel.

Think more -- pontificate and emote less.

I have a BIG problem with romantic thinkers when it comes engineering or science and that (unfortunately) includes many environmentalists. What is it that makes me unreasonable or too emotional (considering the urgency of our situation and the dumb decisions that are made, one of which you describe so well)?

There are MANY environmentalists who have warned that ethanol production as it has been promoted would create havoc like it may begin to show now. What data shows that we have enough agricultural land to allow us to grow enough of any fuel crop to satisfy our current energy needs AND grow the same amount of food crops at the same prices? Are you one who has romantic dreams about tech-solutions that do not require habit changes while simultaneously calling me irrational and my words and actions "emoting"? Why would ANYONE care about ANY ethanol production if it was not for the "alarmists" (= people who are concerned about global climate change or energy shortages) you blame for other ethanol production? Nobody can take credit for the slow awakening of the world's population to those issues other than those "alarmists".

BTW, part of the idea of scientific thinking is that one adjusts according to new data whether it is convenient or not. It is perfectly acceptable that data showing certain projects may cause more harm than good is considered before those projects are implemented. It would be a sign of poor reasoning if we ignored it. This said, I wish we would drop a few ideas we continue to use even though they have proven do more harm than good in the long run. Long term thinking is not our strength is seems. Popularity (and that includes MANY superficially "green" concepts) wins all too often.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

According to highly respected physicist (Prof. Emeritus, U. of CT, PhD) Howard C. Hayden (and many other scientists), the ability of atmospheric CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas is severely curtailed at today's levels of atmospheric CO2. There are three key pieces of scientific fact that lead to this inescapable conclusion: (1) the primary greenhouse agent (water vapor, clouds) is responsible for the vast majority of "greenhouse" heat retention by absorbing & reflecting heat radiation in a large portion (but not all) of the IR, (2) CO2 has heat retention capability that overlaps the portion of the IR that water vapor already traps (no additional heat can be trapped by adding more water vapor or CO2 to that portion of the IR), so very little of the IR is available for CO2 to retain more heat; (3) a property of CO2's heat retention capacity is that it diminishes logarithmically as quantity of atmospheric CO2 increases (i.e., it becomes less capable of affecting temperature). CO2's heat retention capacity with the first 20 ppm added to the atmosphere cannot be matched until another 400 ppm are added! In other words, adding more CO2 has severely diminishing returns. Coupled with the small portion of the IR over which CO2 is meaningful (given water vapor has already saturated the heat retention ability of the atmosphere over the remainder of CO2's IR potential), the belief that atmospheric CO2 is a significant climate change force is simply unfounded in scientific fact ... indeed, it is refuted by the facts.

What prevents the Earth from overheating? Weather, principally precipitation. And guess what? The greatest flaw of the climate models is their inability to model water vapor, clouds, and precipitation properly. Yet these are the greatest factors (forces) that act to prevent both overheating and overcooling of the Earth's atmosphere! When climate science is as poorly understood as it is today, developing and using computer simulations is a worthless venture.

Read the IPCC summary report and you're inundated with "likely" "very likely" "not likely" etc. These are all statisticians' terms for "we haven't a clue, but based on what we think we know, this is our best guess".

Read Dr. Hayden's latest book, "A Primer on CO2 and Climate" if you want to learn more.

Also, the best description for the uninformed about weather and how it acts to moderate climate is contained in Dr. Roy Spencer's new book, "Climate Confusion" ...

Both books are readily available online.

So let's not waste vast sums of money on schemes to reduce CO2 emissions when there is absolutely no evidence that doing so will have any detectible influence on global average temperature (despite the theories of Gore and the IPCC whose only evidence is the projections of seriously flawed climate models that omit tow significant sources of CO2 generation(!), volcanos and carbonate rock erosion!

We are being led down a path that will be more costly than any venture undertaken in this nation's history ... on the basis of shoddy "science" (IPCC) and a false prophet (Gore) who stands to make millions (possibly billions) from a carbon trading scheme.

Let's spend our money where it matters if we want to conserve our resources and improve our quality of life while protecting our enviornment.

An educated public is needed to know the truth. Too much disinformation is being peddled about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It is a false theory that any one contradiction is sufficient to render it "bunk" ... yet despite a host of contradictions, the media and politicians (and die-hard government funded scientists) along with false prophet Gore, continue to mislead the public.

Let's hope real "environmentalists" step forward to lead the way in exposing this scam.

BobWebster

such as: "Yeah, I love these crazy environmental wackos . . ."

and: "My advice to the self-anoited "environmentalists" who want to save the world . . . "

“Given the grossly disappointing international political response to the required greenhouse gas emissions, ... research on the feasibility and environmental consequences of climate engineering of the kind presented in this paper, which might need to be deployed in future, should not be tabooed,” Crutzen said.

Apparently, Crutzen thinks that forming opinions and conclusions based on data and facts is the way to go. What a crazy guy.

منتديات -
صور -
برامج كمبيوتر -
العاب كمبيوتر -
مسجات
رسائل

thanks ,mm