inexpensive solution to end global warming

[Ryder]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=15

Even if there is warming, it's easy to stop. And cheap.

since high altitude aerosols are already at work in the bogus "models", we can be certain of any temperature we wish to dial in.

America has been getting blamed for global warming... do you think we would get credit for stopping it in it's tracks, cheaply?

Oh, that's right... it interferes with the global government socialist agenda.

I say we add the aerosols that will offset the supposed "warming" of the US only. Let the other whining nations do their part.

[Mike Davis]

Ryder:
The least expensive method to eliminate Global Warming is to cease funding the groups that are providing the data that shows the globe is warming. Without their "Value Added Adjustments" we would not have any warming to speak of beyond natural climate variations.

[questioner]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?cat=15

Even if there is warming, it's easy to stop. And cheap.

since high altitude aerosols are already at work in the bogus "models", we can be certain of any temperature we wish to dial in.

America has been getting blamed for global warming... do you think we would get credit for stopping it in it's tracks, cheaply?

Oh, that's right... it interferes with the global government socialist agenda.

I say we add the aerosols that will offset the supposed "warming" of the US only. Let the other whining nations do their part.

There are side effects on the earth's climate associated with the dispersal of aerosals that are not considered in your analysis. It should be considered a last resort when attempts to reduce GHG's in the atmosphere have failed.

Here is a more balanced analysis of some geo engineering ideas:
http://www.grist.org/article/Plan-B/

Varieties of geoengineering

There are two chief forms of geoengineering under consideration: albedo management, which reduces heat in the short term by blocking or reflecting a small portion of the sunlight hitting the Earth; and carbon management, which uses a variety of techniques to gradually sequester large amounts of atmospheric carbon. Albedo management techniques include cloud brightening, stratospheric particle injection (mimicking the effects of large volcanic eruptions), and the infamous orbiting space mirrors. Carbon management techniques include biochar burial, trees and other plants engineered to absorb more CO2, and “air capture,” which uses a chemical process to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Of the two, albedo management would be most likely to be used to give the short-term “stay of execution” to allow carbon emission reductions to take hold. Enhanced carbon sequestration, while ultimately more effective, would be too slow to make a difference in a time scale measured in months and years rather than decades and centuries.

A variety of albedo management techniques have been suggested. Some, such as putting reflective sheets in the desert to launching thousands of square kilometers of mirror fabric into orbit, don’t pass the plausibility test, either due to cost or clear draw-backs. The two approaches that seem most likely to be considered are stratospheric injection of sulfates and cloud-brightening via seawater pumps.

The sulfate injection plan is explicitly modeled on the effects of massive volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo; global temperatures dropped by half-a-degree celsius in the months after the 1991 eruption. The favorable aspects of this plan are reasonably solid: the cooling effect would start within weeks of the injection process; the technology is readily available; and because of the historical record around volcanic eruptions, we actually have a decent idea of what kinds of impacts this kind of geoengineering would have. The less-favorable aspects are also fairly clear: likely damage to the ozone layer (as happened after Mt. Pinatubo); the potential for health and ecological damage should the sulfate injections fail to reach the stratosphere; and a temperature “spike” if sulfate injections are stopped abruptly.

Cloud-brightening has a similar temperature impact, but is less eco-mimetic. It appears to have fewer potential drawbacks and would be used over a smaller area than sulfate injection (which is necessarily global). Its likely problems include bigger uncertainties about the technologies required, questions about the potential for as-yet unknown consequences, and the same temperature bounce-back as sulfate injection if the process is halted suddenly.

Albedo management of any kind also faces the probability of altering rainfall patterns, with the potential for inducing droughts and triggering storms in places that wouldn’t necessarily have been hit in a no-geoengineering scenario. And, of course, moderating temperatures does nothing to stop ongoing ocean acidification.

Sociopolitical issues

Any kind of geoengineering would also face a variety of non-technical issues that at best add complexity to their use. Most prominent are the political concerns. With geoengineering being global in impact, who determines whether or not it’s used, which technologies to deploy, and what the target temperatures will be? Who decides which unexpected side-effects are bad enough to warrant ending the process? Given that the expense required for sulfate injection (and likely cloud-brightening) would be low enough for a single country to undertake, what happens when a desperate “rogue nation” attempts geoengineering against the wishes of other states? And with the benefits and possible harm from geoengineering attempts being unevenly distributed around the planet, would it be possible to use this technology for strategic or military purposes? That last one may sound a bit paranoid, but it’s clear that any technology with the potential for strategic use will be at the very least considered by any rational international actor.

There are also more mundane questions of liability. If (for example) South Asia experiences an unusual drought during cyclone season after geoengineering begins, who gets blamed? Who gets sued? Would all “odd” weather patterns be ascribed to the geoengineering effort? If so, would the issue of what would have happened absent geoengineering be considered relevant?

The broad push-back against geoengineering from many environmentalists tends to focus upon other issues, however. Some people argue that geoengineering is at best a distraction from making the necessary cuts to carbon emissions, and at worst a temptation to delay or abandon those cuts entirely. Others argue that geoengineering is simply dangerous, as the Earth’s geophysical systems are far too complex to “engineer,” and any attempt to manipulate the climate in this way is bound to have enormous unanticipated consequences.

Both are possible. I’m less concerned about the first, as geoengineering would most likely be a controversial reaction to a desperate need to avoid catastrophe, and the inevitable loud debate over the value of geoengineering would drive home the point that carbon emissions have to continue. The question of complexity and unintended results can’t be so easily set aside, however. Frankly, I would go so far as to say that problems of complexity and dangerous surprises are close to certain in any geoengineering scenario.

[HarpoSpoke]

There are side effects on the earth's climate associated with the dispersal of aerosals that are not considered in your analysis. It should be considered a last resort when attempts to reduce GHG's in the atmosphere have failed.

At this point one has to wonder when your side would admit that attempts to reduce GHG's have failed. We have been trying since Rio in 1992. That's 18 years. Result: Increased CO2 emissions worldwide with no end in sight.

Ok....so what is the standard for "failure" here?

Also, if you want to know the downsides of something, propose an alternative to the political agenda of the AGW movement. You'll get a long list of the negatives. At no point however, will you ever hear any hint of a downside to their proposals. (Apparently the first policy proposal in history with no downside)

[Mike Davis]

Harpo:
The point is that there is no real "Up Side" to the proposals advanced by the "Fear Mongers". What is and has been proposed are flash in the pan day dreams that are promoted by myopic individuals who have no understanding of how the real world works.
The best example recently was the Climate Researcher who said the reason we are experiencing no warming is due to problems with the measuring equipment. This when the equipment and methods used today are the best in the history of weather monitoring. However the weather people claim that this was not designed to monitor Climate.

[Ryder]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?cat=15

Even if there is warming, it's easy to stop. And cheap.

since high altitude aerosols are already at work in the bogus "models", we can be certain of any temperature we wish to dial in.

America has been getting blamed for global warming... do you think we would get credit for stopping it in it's tracks, cheaply?

Oh, that's right... it interferes with the global government socialist agenda.

I say we add the aerosols that will offset the supposed "warming" of the US only. Let the other whining nations do their part.

There are side effects on the earth's climate associated with the dispersal of aerosals that are not considered in your analysis. It should be considered a last resort when attempts to reduce GHG's in the atmosphere have failed.

Actually, no. If the engineers behind the idea I have shared above are correct (and I have never heard these facts challenged), we would be changing the sulfur aerosol content of the atmosphere by less than 1%.

There is no possible way that the effects of this 1% change (on a planet that is already volcanically active) could be larger than the effects popularly advertised regarding AGW.

The above proposed solution is EASILY more practical than the proven failure of poltical means.... vastly cheaper, easily controlable and can be stopped at any time if there are any adverse affects that we think are *worse* than AGW affects.

Sulfer wins. Easily.

It can be done NOW, and have an effect NOW, and is already a known quantity with modeled results.

To be against it, you would have to argue that you prefer AGW over sulfer at 100.8% of nominal. Which would be insane IF you really believed the issue of AGW was a serious one.

[Ryder]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?cat=15

Even if there is warming, it's easy to stop. And cheap.

since high altitude aerosols are already at work in the bogus "models", we can be certain of any temperature we wish to dial in.

America has been getting blamed for global warming... do you think we would get credit for stopping it in it's tracks, cheaply?

Oh, that's right... it interferes with the global government socialist agenda.

I say we add the aerosols that will offset the supposed "warming" of the US only. Let the other whining nations do their part.

There are side effects on the earth's climate associated with the dispersal of aerosals that are not considered in your analysis. It should be considered a last resort when attempts to reduce GHG's in the atmosphere have failed.

Actually, no. If the engineers behind the idea I have shared above are correct (and I have never heard these facts challenged), we would be changing the sulfur aerosol content of the atmosphere by less than 1%.

There is no possible way that the effects of this 1% change (on a planet that is already volcanically active) could be larger than the effects popularly advertised regarding AGW.

The above proposed solution is EASILY more practical than the proven failure of poltical means.... vastly cheaper, easily controlable and can be stopped at any time if there are any adverse affects that we think are *worse* than AGW affects.

Sulfer wins. Easily.

It can be done NOW, and have an effect NOW, and is already a known quantity with modeled results.

To be against it, you would have to argue that you prefer AGW over sulfer at 100.8% of nominal. Which would be insane IF you really believed the issue of AGW was a serious one.

[questioner]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?cat=15

Even if there is warming, it's easy to stop. And cheap.

since high altitude aerosols are already at work in the bogus "models", we can be certain of any temperature we wish to dial in.

America has been getting blamed for global warming... do you think we would get credit for stopping it in it's tracks, cheaply?

Oh, that's right... it interferes with the global government socialist agenda.

I say we add the aerosols that will offset the supposed "warming" of the US only. Let the other whining nations do their part.

There are side effects on the earth's climate associated with the dispersal of aerosals that are not considered in your analysis. It should be considered a last resort when attempts to reduce GHG's in the atmosphere have failed.

Actually, no. If the engineers behind the idea I have shared above are correct (and I have never heard these facts challenged), we would be changing the sulfur aerosol content of the atmosphere by less than 1%.

There is no possible way that the effects of this 1% change (on a planet that is already volcanically active) could be larger than the effects popularly advertised regarding AGW.

The above proposed solution is EASILY more practical than the proven failure of poltical means.... vastly cheaper, easily controlable and can be stopped at any time if there are any adverse affects that we think are *worse* than AGW affects.

Sulfer wins. Easily.

It can be done NOW, and have an effect NOW, and is already a known quantity with modeled results.

To be against it, you would have to argue that you prefer AGW over sulfer at 100.8% of nominal. Which would be insane IF you really believed the issue of AGW was a serious one.

I haven't found the basis for Myrhold's statement, so I am skeptical. What I do know is that Myrhold was very wrong about the effect of solar cells on the earth's energy balance. It strikes me that he is one of those guys trying to make a name for himself as an unconventional person and going a little bit overboard, and not thinking clearly.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13 ... ling-myths

The article takes apart this quotation from Myrhold:
“A lot of the things that people say would be good things probably aren’t,” Myrhvold says. As an example he points to solar power. “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12 percent gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat—which contributed to global warming."


Everything he says in that statement is wrong. Solar cells are not black, and putting them on an light absorbing roof doesn't make any difference in heating of the earth. Solar cell efficiencies are above 17% now. The solar cells displace the production of vast amounts of CO2 which stays in the atmosphere for centuries and causes a tremendous amount of extra heat absorption over its lifetime. I need a better reference than him for a 1% number.

[glenncz]

The point is that there is no real "Up Side" to the proposals advanced by the "Fear Mongers".

Mike, I have to correct you on that one. Of course there is an "Up Side", that is how they get their money, from US! I really wish that these wack jobs and thieves could somehow put their money where there mouth is, like in a capitalist society where there is risk of loss for dumb idea. There is NO DOWNSIDE to their ideas, they suck at our teet, siphoning off valuable money, time and resources. Yet, of course they don't power their own houses with dumb alternative energy, if they have an electric car, it is certainly their second car, and they continue to receive public funding in the billions = it is ALL a one-way street with absolutely no benefit to the working taxpayer. NONE.

Temperatures and climate continues to do what it wants to do and there will be absolutely no stopping man's CO2 creation, not even if we had the political will to do something, the common man would finally wake up and Just Say No to draconian measures. But for now, they can be satisfied with what they get, a couple percent here, another inconvenience there, it is just another tax of our time and money.
EVERY SINGLE CENT of these progressive dreams comes from from taxpayers.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ynOO15XuGnc/SlumnbrhocI/AAAAAAAAB3Y/luE3fcWTp_8/s1600-h/wind_subsidies.jpg
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

[questioner]

Upon further research, I find that the 1% figure given for the total emissions of sulfates is correct. The proposal is so much more effective than the emissions due to fossil fuels because it goes directly into the stratosphere.
Here is an excellent well balanced article on Geoengineering from Scientific American, which looks carefully at the advantages and disadvantges.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... cool-earth

Here is an excerpt which shows why using this the only strategy is risky.

Geoengineering cannot solve the CO2 problem—in part because the problem is not just one of global warming. If we were to stop global warming with a sunshade, CO2 would continue to seep into the ocean, slowly acidifying it, and in time the ecological consequences would likely be dire. Nevertheless, stopping global warming temporarily might be worthwhile. And sulfate geoengineering, Caldeira says, would be “cheap enough that single actors could do it and bear the cost themselves.” The U.S. could choose to save Greenland’s ice cap (and thus prevent Florida from flooding), China its Himalaya glaciers, Switzerland its ski industry, all without the fuss of negotiating a global climate treaty. Depending on your point of view, that is one of the more appealing or one of the scarier things about geoengineering.

Probably the scariest thing to think about, though, is what would happen if we did not reduce carbon emissions, built a cooling sunshade—and then allowed it to fail. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a climate modeler at the University of Chicago, refers to this scenario as “DamoclesWorld.” The thin sulfate thread that holds up the CO2 sword would have to be maintained, year after year, with steady injections of ever increasing amounts of SO2. If it ever snapped, for reasons of war or civil unrest or budget crises, the accumulated CO2 would warm the planet in one fell swoop, creating precisely the emergency the sunshade was intended to prevent, only worse. Caldeira, too, has simulated the collapsing-sunshade scenario, along with H. Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal; they found that the earth might warm at a rate of between four and seven degrees F per decade, 10 times faster than it is warming today. Human history, Pierrehumbert argues, does not inspire confidence that we could forestall such a catastrophe. On a graph he uses to illustrate the result of his own simulations, the point at which geoengineering stops and temperatures soar is labeled “Fall of Rome.”