Category Archives: Geo-engineering & Weather News

Geoengineering Begins Spring 2019: Spray the Skies to Cool the Planet

David DuByne creator of the ADAPT 2030 channel on YouTube discusses societal changes as our Earth shifts to a cooler climate as the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum intensifies, a 400-year cycle in our Sun which will affect crop production, the economy and everyone on our planet. This is a timeline for what you can expect from now to 2023.

•First geoengineering experiments begin Spring 2019 undertaken by Harvard University

•Plans to dim the sunlight striking Earth are on track Spring 2019

•Aerial spraying of calcium carbonate or sulfur dioxide

•Cover the planet with trees before we spray Earth’s skies

•Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment (SCOPEX)

•Flip New NASA report, global warming promotes Arctic Sea Ice Growth

•Dirtiest polluters on the planet are ships using bunker fuel

•India and China continue to pollute unchecked

•Temperatures will cool naturally because of the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum so SCOPEX will take credit for cooling the planet in their program

•Climateviewer.com for patents already filed involving geoengineering since the late 1940’s

•Artificial trees

•Tambora Eruption Year Without a Summer

Extinction Level Event Begins Spring 2019 as Harvard Public Geoengineering Goes Live

Geoengineering tests are being public announced by Harvard University, the Solar Geoengineering Research Program is now public. So much for the conspiracy, Firsts spray trials will begin in early 2019 with calcium carbonate injected into cloud layers using a tethered balloon to begin with, moving to a fleet of aircraft at full roll out. The plan is to mimic a Pinatubo eruption level event to cool the planet by 0.6C within 15 months, termed rapid cooling. This will occur the same time the planet begins to cool as the Grand Solar Minimum intensifies, so it appears Harvard is trying to give itself success in the aerosol spraying program to cool the planet, but in actuality its the Sun in its 400 year cycle. The program will be indefinite due to “termination shock” and full reversal to global warming conditions if they stop. Global taxes to follow, new Geoengineering Taxes, no longer CO2 tax, they switched the narrative.

Harvard Scientists Begin Experiment To Block Out The Sun

forbes.com
5 December 2018
Trevor Nace

A group of Harvard scientists plans to tackle climate change through geoengineering by blocking out the sun. The concept of artificially reflecting sunlight has been around for decades, yet this will be the first real attempt at controlling Earth’s temperature through solar engineering.

The project, called Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment(SCoPEx), will spend $3 million to test their models by launching a steerable balloon in the southwest US 20 kilometers into the stratosphere. Once the balloon is in place, it will release small particles of calcium carbonate. Plans are in place to begin the launch as early as the spring of 2019.

The basis around this experiment is from studying the effects of large volcanic eruptions on the planet’s temperature. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted spectacularly, releasing 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The sulfur dioxide created a blanket around Earth’s stratosphere, cooling the entire planet by 0.5 °C for around a year and a half.

Engineering A Solution To Climate Change

As scientists, governmental agencies around the world, and environmental groups grow increasingly worried of our collective ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change, the idea of geoengineering a solution has become more accepted. The ultimate goal is to reduce the warming on Earth. This can be done by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sucking CO2 from the atmosphere, or limiting the sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface.

The first two methods are actively discussed and implemented to various degrees. The recent commitment of G20 members (with the United States as the sole rejector) to the Paris Agreement will act to solve the source of the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sucking CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it away in Earth’s crust, called CO2 sequestration, has been implemented and deployed. For instance, Royal Dutch Shell has built large carbon sequestration facilities with the Canadian and Australian governments.

The third method, blocking out sunlight has been controversial in the scientific community for decades. The controversy lies in the inability to fully understand the consequences of partially blocking out sunlight. A reduction in global temperature is well understood and expected, however, there remain questions around this method’s impact on precipitation patterns, the ozone, and crop yields globally.

This is precisely why the Harvard research team intends to spray tiny chalk (calcium carbonate) particles into the stratosphere in a controlled experiment. Computer models can only go so far in predicting the impacts this geoengineering technique, it is time for a real world test. With funding in part by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, the Harvard team will begin to answer the remaining questions as early as the spring of 2019.

While the potential negative effects are not fully characterized, the ability to control Earth’s temperature by spraying small particles into the stratosphere is an attractive solution largely due to its cost. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report estimated that the continual release of particles into the stratosphere could offset 1.5 °C of warming for $1 billion to $10 billion per year.

When comparing these costs with the global reduction in fossil fuel use or carbon sequestration, the method becomes very attractive. Thus, scientists, government agencies and independent funders of this technology must balance the inexpensive and effectiveness of this method with the potential risks to global crops, weather conditions, and drought. Ultimately, the only way to fully characterize the risks is to conduct real-world experiments, just as the Harvard team is embarking upon.

I am a geologist passionate about sharing Earth’s intricacies with you. I received my PhD from Duke University where I studied the geology and climate of the Amazon. I am the founder of Science Trends, a leading source of science news and analysis on everything from climate.

Eco Liberty Conclusion: Sucking Carbon Dioxide (CO2) out of atmosphere will harm all plant life on earth because plants need Carbon Dioxide for photosynthesis to work. Four important element for plants to Sunlight, Water, Carbon Dioxide and the key elements like Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K) and other essential nutrients that help plant growth. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration drop to 150 ppm or below; plants growth shutdown and begin to die. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration stay at 150 ppm or below long enough this could begin forth a major extinction on earth. CO2 is life we should be rejoicing by having CO2 atmospheric concentration surpassing the 400 ppm because plants are loving the extra CO2.

That we should never consent the geoengineering program in earth atmosphere because with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) being sprayed in the atmosphere in order to stop Climate Change is just madness. We already having a lot volcanoes erupting in 2018 according Volcano Discovery website which slow all active volcanoes including the Manam which is erupting and is inject more sulfur dioxide(SO2)into the atmosphere. I don’t why those mad scientist want to engineer the atmosphere? The Sun is going into minimum phase which mean the earth is going to be cooler in the coming years this proves that the driver of climate change is the Sun; Not CO2, Not humans, Not me, Not you.

TERRAFORMING has begun: “Global dimming” is a plot to EXTERMINATE humanity by terraforming the atmosphere with SMOG pollution, killing Earth’s food crops and unleashing ecological collapse

naturalnews.com
4 December 2018
Mike Adams

(Natural News) Now we come to the end game for humanity. This is it, folks: They have a plan to collapse global food production, kill off over 90% of the human race, devastate natural ecosystems and pollute the Earth’s atmosphere… and it’s all being sold to you under the banner of “environmentalism.”

The scheme is called “global dimming,” and it’s a dangerous geoengineering plot to spray billions of tons of smog into the atmosphere so that pollution levels would block sunlight and halt global warming. This is literally what the mad environmental scientists are now proposing — the very same people who have, for years, claimed that “chemtrails” are a conspiracy theory and don’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they want to chemtrail the entire planet in order to “save” us all from global warming.

“Stratospheric aerosol injection” now the new name for chemtrails / geoengineering

The global dimming scheme is, of course, based on spraying chemtrails into the upper atmosphere using thousands of high-altitude flights that release pollution to dim the sun. The very idea of “chemtrails” has, until now, been mocked by the media and the science establishment, who have for years claimed the very idea of chemtrails is a lunatic conspiracy theory. So they’ve changed the name to “stratospheric aerosol injection,” and they now have a science paper that outlines all the costs involved.

“We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing,” writes Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner in their paper, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.” Published in Environmental Research Letters, you can view the full text of the study at this link.

Geoengineering is another term that many people use synonymously with “chemtrails.” And now it’s a strategy being openly advocated by scientists to halt so-called “climate change,” a fake science hoax that has been perpetrated on the world by power-hungry globalists who want humanity to surrender to global rule in the name of “saving the planet.”

The study cites the specific aircraft that would be needed to achieve chemtrails pollution. “[P]urpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities” would be deployed to spray sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The paper proposes 4000 flights a year, costing $2.25 billion per year, continuing over 15 years to make sure the atmosphere is significantly polluted to dim the sun and achieve the terraforming goals of globalists (see more details, below).

In the conclusion of their abstract, the study authors explain the program would require, “thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases,” making it almost impossible to keep secret.

Of course, this very program has already begun, and secrecy isn’t necessary when you have the entire media and science establishment condemning any belief in chemtrails as a form of mental illness. So just remember: As they pollute the skies and dim the sun, if you point out that they’re polluting the skies and dimming the sun, you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”

And there’s no such thing as chemtrails, you see. Nope, it’s “stratospheric aerosol injection” now, which sounds almost sciency. That’s how this program is already being perpetrated right under our noses, right now, even while the media runs a global cover-up to dismiss such ideas as bizarre theories.

The global controllers hope you never read the science papers, of course, because there, geoengineering is routinely cited and even advocated as the “solution” to climate change.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) explained… and yeah, it’s just another name for chemtrails

“Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km,” explain study authors. They also ask, “Could it be done in secret?”

The study offers heavy discussion on the design and costs of aircraft that could deliver the planned pollution to the upper atmosphere:

IPCC (2018) states that ‘there is high agreement that aircrafts after some modifications could inject millions of tons of SO2 in the lower stratosphere (~20 km)’.

The overall goal of the geoengineering program is to inject 5 million tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, otherwise known as “smog”) into the atmosphere. Achieving that goal, “assumes a rational actor seeking to implement a scientifically sensible SAI program,” write the study authors, somehow claiming it is “rational” to disperse mass pollution across the atmosphere of your own planet. The same authors also claim this program must be conducted, “purely out of humanitarian and environmental considerations.”

Shocking realization: This is terraforming planet Earth to collapse the global food supply and kill off humans

In considering the sheer lunacy of the “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” plan, I feel compelled to state that these climate change / global warming scientists are dangerously insane sociopaths and they must be stopped before they murder us all. These lunatics, if given enough government funding, will literally murder our planet and destroy human civilization. Such is the cost of the decades of false propaganda in our public schools that has brainwashed children into believing “climate change” is real and must be halted. The schemes now being proposed to halt this non-existent problem will, themselves, bring about the global destruction that children are being warned about with global warming.

This global pollution / terraforming program, if allowed to continue, could unleash the following devastating consequences, especially if deployed at a time when the sun is in its own dimming cycle that would accelerate global cooling.

#1) Global collapse of food crops – The reduction in solar radiation caused by geoengineering, combined with the natural cycle of global cooling from sun cycles, could produce a sharp reduction in food crop production across the globe. This would result in increased food prices and reduced food supplies, adding to vectors for civil unrest and “climate refugees” invading First World nations to escape starvation.

#2) Global rise in cancer from vitamin D deficiency – Reduction in solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet would exacerbate vitamin D deficiencies that already strongly contribute to cancer fatalities around the world. Sunlight is currently the primary source of vitamin D for billions of world citizens. Dimming the sun would be a death sentence for millions each year who would suffer the dire consequences of chronic vitamin D deficiencies.

#3) Global drop in IQs due to increased air pollution – Increases in air pollution have been scientifically found to lower children’s IQs. In addition, air pollution is scientifically documented to damage DNA in the wombincrease the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and increase the risk of bone loss in humans.

#4) Massive loss of habitat and ecosystems due to decreased sunlight and colder temperatures – Entire ecosystems — such as rainforests — could be devastated by a pollution-initiated drop in solar radiation. Marine ecosystems also rely heavily on solar radiation to power the photosynthesis of ocean plants such as seaweeds, grasses and algae, which serve as a pillar food source for the entire marine food web. Dimming the sun would have devastating consequences for all ecosystems on the planet, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, habitat and eco-diversity.

#5) Huge increase in global acid rain that will devastate forests and food crops – The mass injection of SO2 into the atmosphere will result in SO2 being dispersed into lower levels of the atmosphere over time. There, mixed with rain storms, it will create sulfurous acid, otherwise known as acid rain. This acid rain will devastate forests and food crops and result in the acidification of crop soils, destabilizing soil microbes and leading the widespread crop losses.

#6) Decreased plant production of oxygen that’s necessary for humans, primates and mammals to survive – Nearly all plants depend on solar radiation for photosynthesis, which uses CO2 as a “fuel” and produces oxygen (O2) as a byproduct. Reducing solar radiation through chemtrails pollution would reduce the production of oxygen by plants, resulting in a global fall in atmospheric oxygen levels, ultimately leading to the mass asphyxiation of humans, primates and mammals if allowed to continue. Even the EPA (see source below) admits that SO2 interferes with human respiration and makes it difficult for people to breathe.

Even the EPA recognizes sulfur dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that makes it difficult for humans to breathe

Note carefully that the geoengineering efforts being advocated to dim the sun are based on sulfur dioxide, a known pollutant. “Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult,” warns the EPA. “…[G]aseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth… SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems,” the EPA writes.

In other words, it isn’t even debated whether sulfur dioxide is a pollutant. It’s smog (or technically, it reacts to create smog), and the very idea that mass polluting the atmosphere with SO2 would somehow “save” the planet is rooted in nothing less than advanced psychosis or some other dangerous form of mental illness. That such schemes are marketed under the banner of “science” just shows how twisted the institution of science has now become.

Why would any rational institution seek to mass pollute our entire planet and destroy food crops, forests, mammals, primates and humans? The answer is even more shocking than the proposal itself, it turns out. Keep reading, as one possible explanation for all this continues below…

It wasn’t long ago that scientists warned about “global cooling” and the coming Ice Age

It was only a generation ago that young scientists were being warned that Earth was entering a “global cooling” crisis that would bring about a whole new ice age. This was the climate panic of the 1970s and early 1980s. Today’s older scientists remember the warnings quite well. We were all told that if we didn’t find a way to warm the planet, we would all perish as Earth was turned into a ball of ice.

Beginning in the 1990s, the scientists flipped the script, reversing their warning and suddenly claiming the problem was too much heat. We were all going to die from global warming if we didn’t change something, we were told. A decade or so later, when it was revealed that government science scammers were faking all the warming data, they changed the scam to “climate change,” since they couldn’t scientifically support either warming or cooling.

Here’s the cover of TIME Magazine from 1977, which warns, “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age,” then urges readers to get on board to save the planet, saying, “51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference

Today, we’re told the most absurd, insane things by these scientists who insist that the climate never changed at all before the year 1920, with the rise of the combustion engine and “human activity.” And now we’re constantly terrorized by the fake news media into thinking that if we don’t pollute the Earth’s atmosphere with smog, we will all somehow die from the rise of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 most important greening nutrient for plants, forests and food crops.

So now they’ve decided they have to poison the atmosphere to fight climate change, and they’ve got about a billion gullible world citizens convinced that this is somehow an amazing idea. What they would really unleash, of course, is absolutely catastrophic to all life on our world. Remember: They want to disperse billions of tons of sulfur dioxide (smog) into the atmosphere through massive government-funded chemtrailing of the planet. The question now emerges: Is the destruction of humanity deliberate? If so, who would hatch such a nefarious plan?

Geoengineering is a planet-wide weapon system being deployed to eliminate human life on Earth while terraforming the planet for some other purpose

Here’s the cosmic inconvenient truth that Al Gore doesn’t want you to consider. What we are really witnessing here is the planned terraforming of planet Earth for some other purpose. And by “other,” I mean other than human.

If you wanted humans to thrive on planet Earth, you would not unleash mass pollution, acid rain, food crop failures, oxygen depletion and global dimming. You would, instead, try to reduce pollution, support plant life, enhance food crop production and protect global ecosystems from pollution. That’s the normal, rational thing that any human being would naturally want to pursue.

Yet we are subjected to these nefarious geoengineering schemes that directly contradict every principle of sustainable life on Earth. And it’s all described as a way to “save” the planet, even as it would destroy global life support for humans.

I can’t help but be reminded of the outstanding film Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise. In the film, the Cruise character thinks he’s protecting human civilization, but he’s actually (unknowingly) working for extraterrestrials who are stealing Earth’s resources and exterminating humans. The film is one of the best science fiction films of all time, and its story sounds eerily similar to what may be happening right now with so-called “geoengineering.”

Who (or what) would want to alter the atmosphere, decimate oxygen levels, destroy the food supply and collapse human civilization? The answer should be obvious: Something that is in competition with humans and sees no further use for humanity. Human life on Earth appears to be in the process of being “cleansed” in a cosmic ethnic cleansing scheme that will produce an altered, low-oxygen atmosphere that might prove advantageous to a life form which isn’t already part of Earth’s existing ecosystem. The reduction in solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface would make the planet more hospital to a life form that originated from a planet located farther from its home sun than Earth is from our own sun.

It raises the obvious, if bizarre-sounding, question: Are Earth’s globalists preparing the planet for a post-human era? And is that plan disguised as a “climate change” emergency course of action so that the sheeple can be told the mass pollution of the skies is a bold plan to save humanity rather than exterminate it? What if “climate change” is actually a cosmic false flag hoax that was designed from the very start to convince Earthlings to support their own extermination? Given the now-planned destruction of Earth’s atmosphere in the name of “climate change,” we must now consider such possibilities, no matter how bizarre they first seem.

Why are all the globalists suddenly talking about escaping to Mars and terraforming Marsinto a habitat where humans can survive? Why are globalists now so desperate the alter Earth’s atmosphere and make the planet inhospitable to humans? Why such a recent focus on the Arctic seed vault to preserve the seeds of life in preparation for a global cataclysm? Why are so many globalist insiders building underground bunkers and living in them?

I don’t have the answers to all these questions, but I do know that the fairy tale stories we’re being told about “climate change” and how we must save the planet by polluting the skies are rooted in complete quack science fiction and brainwashing propaganda.

On the other hand, if humans are stupid enough to destroy their own planet in the name of saving the planet, perhaps they’re simply not qualified to participate in an intelligence universe after all. Natural selection, after all, is likely playing out on a cosmic scale, and Earth appears to be flunking the cosmic IQ test that wonders, “Hey, is that civilization stupid enough to commit suicide based on a fairy tale hoax?”

So far, it appears the answer for Earth and humans is a resounding “Yes!”

Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming

CBS News
23 November 2018
Jeff Berardelli

NEW YORK — A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That’s the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters.

It’s the stuff of science fiction. Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up. The idea is to help shield the Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low.

The researchers examined how practical and costly a hypothetical solar geoengineering project would be beginning 15 years from now. The aim would be to half the temperature increase caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

This method would mimic what large volcanoes do. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. It was the second largest eruption of the 20th century, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

mount-pinatubo-philippines-volcanic-eruption.jpg

The second-largest volcanic eruption of this century, and by far the largest eruption to affect a densely populated area, occurred at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991.

USGS

In total, the eruption injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere. USGS said the Earth’s lower atmosphere temperature dropped by approximately 1-degree Fahrenheit. The effect only lasted a couple of years because the sulfates eventually fell to Earth.

Although controversial, some think that trying to mimic the impacts of a volcano eruption is a viable way to control global warming. This proposed type of climate geoengineering is called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Theoretically if done at scale — and sustained — the impact can be large. The 1-degree temperature drop which accompanied Mount Pinatubo’s eruption is equal to about half of the human-caused warming Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution began.

geoengineering-methods-climate-central.png

In this handout photo from Climate Central, they say scientists are looking at a variety of technologies —  from snatching carbon dioxide out of the air like trees do, to launching giant mirrors into space — to artificially slow global warming.

 HANDOUT VIA CLIMATE CENTRAL

Dr. Gernot Wagner from Harvard University is an author of the paper. He said their study shows this type of geoengineering “… would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years.”

But to reach that point, the study said an entirely new aircraft needs to be developed. Partly because missions would need to be conducted at nearly double the cruising altitude of commercial airplanes. The study’s co-authorWake Smithexplained, “No existing aircraft has the combination of altitude and payload capabilities required.”

So, the team investigated what it would cost to develop an aircraft they dub the SAI Lofter (SAIL). They say its fuselage would have a stubby design and the wing area — as well as the thrust — would need to be twice as large. In total, the team estimates the development cost for the airframe to be $2 billion and $350 million to modify existing engines.

In their hypothetical plan, the fleet would start with eight planes in the first year and rise to just under 100 within 15 years. In year one, there would be 4,000 missions, increasing to just over 60,000 per year by year 15. As you can see, this would need to be a sustained and escalating effort.

As one may imagine, a concept like this comes with a lot of controversy. Like treating a fever with aspirin, this type of engineering only treats the symptoms, it does not fix the root cause of the warming: Escalating levels of heat trapping greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) expressed concerns that the possibility of seemingly quick and inexpensive fixes will distract the public and policymakers from addressing the underlying problems and developing adaptation strategies. And if for whatever reason the aerosol missions stopped, within a few years the temperatures would shoot up at breakneck pace. A pace that would likely be too fast for humanity to adjust.

The AMS official policy statement regarding this type of geoengineering begins with a warning, “Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns.”

In other words, the atmosphere is complex. Any band-aid fix is bound to have unintended consequences and possibly cause a new set of problems. The AMS goes on to say results of reflecting sunlight “would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic and national security concerns.” One region may become a desert, while others become flooded out.

And if we learn to control SAI to tailor a favorable result, there’s the concern it may be used for the disproportionate benefit of one nation over another. In a 2017 study in the publication Nature Communications, the authors warn their work “… reemphasizes the perils of unilateral geoengineering, which might prove attractive to individual actors due to a greater controllability of local climate responses, but with inherent additional risk elsewhere.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/embed/video/?v=7960da20fa4e6fab46b7c247969bf3c48bd85bec#zVdrc9u2Ev0rHH4WLL5FaqbTcWQ3jps6imXnqTsaEAQpxCTAAqBlNXP%2F%2B90lqfjRZpp777Spv5BaLnb3HBws1p%2FdW1Fw5c4%2Fu0WnqRVKuvMwCydu095d8vJF4c7d90F5Sc8%2FnMjTty3b2BfZ9ar8MHu9WibvNvLy%2BZk7ce22a3JJRQ3uW2tbM19P11OWG8l3JjiCF2EshGdHTDXr6bbL11Oxnur1NPD8dD31fXxbT6PM43mZ5CTK%2FZRElFNC06wkaRaXlMdZ6Ht8Pf2SbT1NIu8uTGBlVoZxwplXxJQlJeNlmXqZH85oXsQR9xPM4WcESyL8zmre8B2ndss1YbcV8Wd%2BMksSMsY7%2BtRWCEu1gknacIC1eLa6OJiWVHNpV3VXwQcMCR94K4wqwNOfuIZTg0y6vos%2Fqga8hw%2BaIdfb2uAjFxY4hyWxh38TtxXI98ubC2XO7i4v7EXP7b7F%2FLhm4nb6QHHPsGhpQQygoY2Q1dFI%2BEBywwtB4dHePWUZaEn8II1nWZZkAzEbhLc5HYh5OxCzWbx5vumJmUUbKPHbPY%2BasEuh2lLphgJyl7ZtLVivr%2FX0jjQtr64vX7r%2FniCszS3Vgkq7abdK8kfE%2BA9oOakX72Z6tX%2B2TL1HtDxZ%2Fx1J6gv4H8FbmtfcfhX9h9fx1flKeNbukj9GPwb4jvCHCv4L%2FDtRikeIZ9HDg8CS7O7KK73NcXd8j7lf9DuUhdrJWtHiL8OXxBuo7qhpo4fY%2BvaJCSLEE1aP0ASP0Cx%2FUZtVek75xry9RxNW3wdL8GdYHkpL2a8L8%2Bz56aJNf333ap9%2F5Vji6u%2BoSkj%2FzZIE3KbLDdMi58VCSds37s9ADd%2BhuN251R1%2F4KTdeUlrAyZhEg%2BglJpKthWGP%2FqA5dFHlihdao5hR2ufuW01N3A1yK6uJ8N%2BWGExrftM1LXzC%2FtZ5DmXjpLOVu2c8SJzxpvMEcYxWy3kDVDqgMVpayqf9IThat7tdo85Hzc%2FhzSkYTd9GqIkgTSH%2B5IcLkxhyJc0BCxkSLOe4m03XIr%2FTxwst%2Bu15ZdpHsZpRNIoj0kUeBQnAZ%2F4jHmBHwV5HM3ckaiC3zylaeIwRUrVyQK4UWXPSKWpMVopaxxWC1ADdxp1y%2FGGdsLYO1K6mjimVTfcscpBbTk0V511YE8doMuhGsaYmjugJecKAl6A7b3SN1xPnLV79u27Mlm7DpVFbyk722nIuKXWoTsqoDo075SuC4fel8q2VFbwAGUK2XFzdEDfatWoLUfSTp%2Bk%2F0NFgNzgbV%2FDWAZLIArtrFqCxZ3DyQaxMlyB0hfmVKL0i4P2RwKOO7tVGgfEj26cFTmfeT6hYQSz2yyISB7RkhTcoxHPipTHnvuvJ0sv%2Brnqo%2FsJZjUHThLVBa9r8cCvnz45LaOCzkoSB%2BWMRH6UEkpZRIogmwVl6SdpilPWuGTZ5Sd9i3KxcRDfJ0HoePE8jOdBeO92NZ4qJFLD9msjaA3brukeiWo4FAjEi8agClinc6eqVQ4%2BO6qxYT0INTQ8NjSLzWiF70zVNWfYYgaSvIR6iQezLQ9iEHPmx4SWfk4CPgsyloZlUZYI%2Fn7dgaHHu48%2BBbQOdkhdcHMDY6mLjeWE3yJ2eG9pdXDAU74Rljd4PuF5JrBvfXQtZ1uMhrbVkBK8e%2BtgHNdDU2qVNOIWRZUfhuB%2BdwI%2Fy9PMj8gsTgugmwckK%2FyAeMB%2ByVPqecOtgAsGOIf4neF6jE%2Blwgk6v1lBTgwbhiGoEFALUGf0heqV6jTjw8iNZxEH4hz6bQHCtdjb%2B5LGtrZBAJt7bvDnWMHo4SKPjYKO0G4F%2B5nvTS9Hlf%2FUyYGMCf5aAPWV0nvkVxYd3Fn7fnebtrNcL7UqBRNcsoOVyv1K%2FIYKqDh2HpRKxZ9r1bW9RycxAtBuOa1F1%2BAhazFK%2FaA2rBb%2FqZC4nfC1wBPbn%2FTrv6uTM9wWuCTrP82Ib%2BtpxRWXlZCc6z4aXO0W2yre8tQq00JCwQjlWhlVEyE%2FDZIjo7zJIG9w74o9saqge3J%2FiPuSUNP%2FkGp%2BLHPwLH54sTu%2B9ODfulfq5M31%2B%2BDV%2BSd%2FsayOV%2BcBMYvXr5KzSoXbxVn7onjJPiTq9O43f3GlfnrTrLz2eoQ0yvJvJFKYM1j9ZSDpB66lAtFBmPFQ8gZGIJiI%2FgM%3D

But perhaps the greatest reason to be skeptical of aerosol solar sunlight management is that it’s not a silver bullet. As carbon dioxide continues to increase, the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. According to NOAA, ocean acidification can cascade through the ocean food chain, reducing the ability of shell fish and reef-building corals to produce their skeletons. Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere simply limits sunshine, it does not tackle the underlying carbon dioxide build up. The ocean would continue to acidify.

Despite the potential drawbacks, the AMS does recognize — even with aggressive mitigation — we can’t avoid some dangerous consequences of climate changealready baked into the system. Plus, the scale of human adaptation is limited. Therefore, they urge caution and continued research.

The AMS policy statement closes with: “Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts. The potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences imply a need for adequate research, appropriate regulation and transparent deliberation.”

Study: Geoengineering, other technologies won’t solve climate woes

Watts Up With What
11 October 2018
Anthony Watts

Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.

By Steinar Brandslet

The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological

“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.

The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.

Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.

Untested, uncertain, and risky

Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more COby planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?

“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.

In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.

Stumbling blocks

Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.

Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.

How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.

We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.

NETs and airy plans

So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.

Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.

Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.

And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.

“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.

No substitutes for cutting emissions

Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.

Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.

The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.


The paper:

Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3

Geoengineering side effects could be potentially disastrous, research shows

Source:The Guardian
Date: 25 February 2014
Author: John Vidal

Comparison of five proposed methods shows they are ineffective, alter weather systems or could not be safely stopped

Large-scale human engineering of the Earth’s climate to prevent catastrophic global warming would not only be ineffective but would have severe unintended side effects and could not be safely stopped, a comparison of five proposed methods has concluded.

Science academies around the world as well as some climate activists have called for more research into geoengineering techniques, such as reflecting sunlight from space, adding vast quantities of lime or iron filings to the oceans, pumping deep cold nutrient-rich waters to the surface of oceans and irrigating vast areas of the north African and Australian deserts to grow millions of trees. Each method has been shown to potentially reduce temperature on a planetary scale.

But researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany, modelled these five potential methods and concluded that geoengineering could add chaos to complex and not fully understood weather systems. Even when applied on a massive scale, the most that could be expected, they say, is a temperature drop of about 8%.

The potential side effects would be potentially disastrous, say the scientists, writing in Nature Communications. Ocean upwelling, or the bringing up of deep cold waters, would cool surface water temperatures and reduce sea ice melting, but would unbalance the global heat budget, while adding iron filings or lime would affect the oxygen levels in the oceans. Reflecting the sun’s rays into space would alter rainfall patterns and reforesting the deserts could change wind patterns and could even reduce tree growth in other regions.

In addition, say the scientists, two of the five methods considered could not be safely stopped. “We find that, if solar radiation management or ocean upwelling is discontinued then rapid warming occurs. If the other methods are discontinued, less dramatic changes occur. Essentially all of the CO2 that was taken up remains in the ocean.”

Even the foresting of deserts on a massive scale could prove disastrous if the irrigation needed to grow the trees were stopped, they say. “The desert regions would eventually return to desert and the carbon that was stored in the plant biomass and soil would slowly be returned to the atmosphere through decay and respiration,” says the paper.

Each of the five climate engineering methods considered has advantages and disadvantages but individually they are all limited, say the authors. “If CO2 emissions remain high, the climate engineering methods … should not be solely counted on to prevent warming. Our results suggest that CO2 mitigation seems the most effective way to prevent climate change. Climate engineering does not appear to be an alternative option, although it could be possibly used to complement mitigation,” say the authors, who do not look at the ethical, economic, legal, political or technological feasibility of the five methods.

“The paper sounds a timely warning about the abject stupidity of relying upon climate engineering solutions when reducing our reliance on carbon-based energy systems is the only sensible option,” said Dr Matt Watson, a lecturer in geophysical natural hazards at Bristol University.

“The paper … highlights the urgent need to action approaches to climate change that increase mitigation and adaptation efforts, while simultaneously performing rigorous studies of proposed climate engineering methods. Although some climate engineering approaches, including air capture, may prove useful, they cannot be relied on as a ‘silver bullet’,” said Dr Tim Fox, Head of energy and environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.