Tag Archives: Paris Climate Agreement

Harvard Scientists Begin Experiment To Block Out The Sun

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.

Brainwashed Kids are suing the US Government for not taking on Climate Change

Eco Liberty
November 2018
Matthew Miller

Since Donald Trump was elected back in 2016; he exit out the Paris Climate agreement. 2 Year later the kids want to Sue the Trump Administration for not Taking on Climate Change and not going long with the scam. For my point of view: For those kid; you been brainwashed to believe that Global warming is an issue and as human being we are blamed for it. And all the Climate Change alarmism is being taught in school indoctrinating children to believe that human are blame for climate change like:

  • Carbon Dioxide is a pollination
  • Ice is melting
  • Polar bear population is declining
  • Cow farts causing an increase of greenhouse gases
  • Wind turbines and solar are good sources of energy
  • Carbon Tax will save the planet

The real facts are

  • Carbon Dioxide is plant food (Between 1,000 to 1,500 ppm is an optimal CO2 level for plants growth. The raising CO2 level is greening the planet. But not enough CO2 (200 ppm or less) plants will not grow but too much CO2 (above 2,000 ppm) is toxic

  • Ice melts in the summer and grow in the winter. Back in 2014 Antarctica have the record high level of ice with surface area of  20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). Back in 2009 in the Copenhagen Climate Al Gore claims Arctic will be ice free by 2014 or 2016 according to this video


But Al Gore you’re way off because it’s now 2018 and the polar ice in arctic is there.The Arctic Ice is getting thick this image prove that is the case from Polar Portal

Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2008

Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2018

Those two image prove that arctic is getting thicker. Arctic will still have ice in the next decade with the up coming solar minimum which will be call the Eddy Minimum

  • Polar bear population is booming and thriving. Population is estimated to around 22,000 to 30,000 which will around 4 to 6 fold since the 1950s despite fears about global warming’s impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. If polar bear is thriving why is still declared “threatened”?
  • Methane is excuse that Climate alarmist like to use push their agenda to deindustrialize the agriculture industry and to tax meat and then bring forth meat  prohibition as well other animal products in the name of sustainability and saving the planet. Without the Greenhouse effect on earth will be much colder
  • Wind and solar are not reliable source of energy on a large sale because you need wind for wind turbines to work; you need sun for solar panels to work; Wind don’t always blow and sun don’t always shine. They’re also expensive as well. Wind turbine is harming the bird population that why Wind Turbine is call “bird killers”. Humans and animals living near the Wind Turbine could having some negative health effect on them.
  • Carbon Tax will bring forth deindustrialization, create jobs losses, undermine the economy, make Electricity and Gasoline more expensive, make everyday life a living hell.

All I can say that: I been there; I used to believe that global warming was issue in my late teens and my early 20s and I end have a Malthusianist mindset by thinking that depopulation was necessary to combat Climate Change. Believing in Climate alarmism may you into a anti-human mindset. Oh boy that the road I never want go back on because that a mindset a psychopath would have. The climate alarmist also they want climate skeptics arrested and throw in prison and those who even disagree with them; this is dangerous; the elite know that climate alarmism ideology is felling apart and they want to being as much people with them.

My Conclusion:  

To the Climate Alarmist you can raise up above the fear you taught to believe. I don’t have all the answers; I know that many Climate Alarmist will continue in their falsehood what Elites have indoctrinated them with. I try do make it easier as I can your to understand the information. Even that don’t believe every word I post in the article I best to do your own research. That why I got several link that you chick and decide for yourself.



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