Category Archives: Solar Management

Adapt 2030: Geoengineering and Volcanic Eruptions Do Not Mix Well (938)

Also on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/H7xR1r4n1nU/

What do you get when the US government earmarks $4 million for “climate intervention” otherwise known as geo-engineering plus massive amounts of ash and pollution in the atmosphere? Did any geo-engineers take into account a VEI5 eruption to mix with their experiments?

Harvard scientists want to limit how much sunlight reaches Earth’s surface in order to curb global warming

businessinsider.com
21 March 2019
Melina Seiler and Ruqayyah Moynihan, Business Insider Deutschland
How we can curb the devastating effects of climate change is still hotly debated among politicians and scientists alike.
  • Climate change and global warming are among the greatest challenges mankind has faced up until now.
  • Researchers at Harvard have put forward a new solution — they want to reflect some of the sun’s heat back out to space.
  • The process is referred to as “solar geoengineering” or “solar geotechnics”.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges mankind has faced up until now.

How we’ll be able to curtail global warming and its devastating consequences is still very much a hot potato among politicians and scientists alike — and so far, the outcome of all these debates hasn’t been particularly fruitful.

However, researchers at Harvard may have come up with a solution that sounds just a little too good to be true.

In conjunction with researchers from MIT and Princeton, the group has suggested slowing down global warming by diminishing the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface.

Yes, you read that right. The technology is called solar geoengineering or solar geotechnics.

According to a study published in Nature Climate Change, the researchers are considering what might happen if they were to introduce sunlight-reflecting particles into Earth’s atmosphere.

bright sun sea seagull
Researchers at Harvard have suggested dimming the sun as a partial solution to help slow down global warming.

The most important thing to note is that the researchers aren’t suggesting the method is a solution to rising global warming trends; it isn’t designed to bring temperatures back to pre-industrial levels nor does it address the real crux of the problem — the amount of carbon dioxide we’re producing.

In fact, too high a dose of “dimming” could even worsen the situation.

Read more: This Spanish company found a way to produce fuel without emitting CO2 — and it’s made of sewage

Postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Peter Irvine, was the lead author of the study.

coal power plant sunset
As well as this measure, carbon dioxide emissions still need be reduced worldwide.

“The analogy is not perfect,” he explained, “but solar geoengineering is a little like a drug which treats high blood pressure. An overdose would be harmful, but a well-chosen dose could reduce your risks. Of course, it’s better to not have high blood pressure in the first place but once you have it, along with making healthier lifestyle choices, it’s worth considering treatments that could lower your risks.”

The study suggests that this technology could the rate at which temperatures are increasing in half, which could offer global benefits without exacerbating problems in other parts of the world.

Read more: The UN has warned that we only have 12 years to curb climate change

Alongside this measure, however, carbon dioxide emissions would still need to be reduced across the globe.

More water and fewer hurricanes

hurricane harvey
The scientists found that halving global warming with solar technology not only cools the planet but would also compensate for over 85% of hurricane intensity.

In order to better understand which regions might end up worse off if this geoengineering technology were combined with emission reductions, the researchers used a state-of-the-art, high-resolution model to simulate extreme rainfall and tropical hurricanes.

This is the first time a model of this sort has been used to look into the possible effects of solar geotechnics.

Read more: Global warming is making oceans so acidic, they may reach the pH they were 14 million years ago

The researchers studied temperature and precipitation extremes, water availability, and also measured the intensity of tropical storms.

climate change
The researchers emphasised that our main response to climate change still ought to be to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions.

They found that halving global warming via geoengineering would not only cool the planet but also moderate changes in water availability and extreme precipitation in many places.

While the science surrounding geoengineering technology is over half a century old, it’s only recently — since our attention has been drawn Earth’s climate change — that scientists have intensified their researched the field.

Read more: A UN Secretary-General adviser called Donald Trump a ‘psychopath’ for suggesting a return to coal power

Researchers at Harvard University have stressed, however, that our main response to climate change should be to curb carbon dioxide emissions; geoengineering alone simply wouldn’t be capable of fully remedying the root of the environmental problems.

Eco Liberty Conclusion: Geoengineering has been going on for decades. Now Harvard Scientist want to spray Sulfur into the sky in attempt to stop global warming. In fact the solar activity has been in decline since the 1980s in solar cycle 21. Now sun is coming the end of solar cycle 24 and soon enter into solar sun 25. Harvard been to geoengineer the sky spray Inject Calcium Carbonate or Sulfur (S) into the earth atmosphere in an attempt to stop man made global warming. For I have no idea what Calcium Carbonate can do the atmosphere or the soil but I know what happen when Sulfur dioxide get into the atmosphere it block out the sun. We all know that plants need sunlight to grow; having planes that inject sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to block out the sun to cool the planet even negativity affects the agriculture around the planet. Eco Liberty to Harvard University “I say no go to your geoengineering program”. Thing is that happen when big massive volcano erupted while the Harvard University geoengineering program when live? The video down below (Adapt 2030: What Happens if a VEI-7 Eruption Occurs When Harvard’s Geoengineering Program is Live? (768)

That Why Harvard’s Geoengineering Program is a no go having aluminium (Al), barium (Ba) and strontium (Sr) is already bad enough and still don’t any idea what will do the atmosphere, the water and the soil but I do know what aluminium (Al) does the human body and there a link to wikipedia see what effect aluminium has on the human body also on animals and the environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Toxicity
All Geoengineering progarm should stop now and let nature take it’s cause. If you want the read about the Harvard University Geoengineering program heres the link below.
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/geoengineering

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.

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

Bloomberg: Geoengineering: The Bad Idea We Need to Stop Climate Change

Source:Bloomberg (Note that the link the source will be at the bottom of article rather than at the top)
Date: 11 February 2016
Author: Eric Roston

The 2013 movie Snowpiercer took a fanciful look at what might happen if human attempts to engineer the climate were to go awry. A pair of reports from the National Research Council offers a sober, reality-based look. Photographer: Weinstein Company/Everett Collection

Maybe the problem with climate change isn’t that we’ve messed with the earth too much. Or maybe we haven’t messed with it enough.

The National Research Council, which writes fat, independent reports on complicated topics for policymakers, has at last weighed in on the utility— and possible consequences—of re-engineering the planet to ease global warming’s worst impacts. It’s called geoengineering, and with a name like that, what could go wrong? Never mind the instantaneous global ice age conjured in Snowpiercer, in which cooling chemicals poured into the atmosphere go awry. Continue reading Bloomberg: Geoengineering: The Bad Idea We Need to Stop Climate Change

10 Reasons why you should not believe in global warming and climate change alarmism

Matthew Miller EL founder and bloggerSource: Eco Liberty
Date: 18 February 2016
Author: Matthew Miller, Eco Liberty founder and blogger

It funny that people been told that the earth is warming and we to be blamed for all that warming and they believe it without question. And you been bought into the shame and panic that we are blame for the global warming of this planet. But is it true? Or is it a political movement for a political agenda; tyrannical governments in the past have use the environment as a excuse for their political agenda. Look like the environmental movement today is pushing for One World Government and doing through scientific fraud by tampering with data which they are recorded temperature throughout the centuries and decade; so it fit with their political agenda. This environmental political agenda is based the Marxist ideology which that doesn’t support for humankind throughout the world for a better world but bring in a one world totalitarian government which that total enslavement of all human beings throughout the world. Here 10 reasons you must do all in your power not to fall in and believe in the Global warming or Climate Change hypocrisy . And if you’ve were a believe and you just that all that Global warming and Climate change is not a problem I highly recommend you read this article further. But the alarmist would say “you’re a climate change denier.” Don’t listen to those climate alarmists they will try bully you and call you names but can ignore them or say “so what” Continue reading 10 Reasons why you should not believe in global warming and climate change alarmism