Is Statospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG) just another diversionary tactic to bring about the ice age earlier than it is naturally bound to occur?
Which has the greatest potential for large scale societal disruption : a 2 deg c rise or a 2 deg c drop in global mean temperature?
If the radiative forcing of CO2 is as high as it is assumed, how will SAG affect or reduce the CO2-induced warming, given the half life of the CO2 molecule?
What are expected epidemiological dynamics over the coming years and decades that could result from large-scale SAG?
It is serious enough that Gates donated money for it
You can at least start reading the scientific articles about this subject and then come with specific criticism
Hello Harry, I am particularly concerned about SAG because I have a little understanding of how the climate system works and what such disruptions could mean? I have been following this issue for some time and even wrote a paper about it in 2014, out of shear curiosity.
https://www.academia.edu/22032445/Engineering_Options_for_Climate_Protection_Solution_or_Armageddon_A_Critical_Review_of_Global_Warming_Mitigation_Strategies_through_Geo-engineering
There have been a number of modelling exercises on the possible effect of geo-engineering with aerosol especially seaspray over the arctic
Global cooling and global warming are related to increasing consumption of fossil fuels with gradual increase in population and industries. Global warming is due to greenhouse gases whereas global cooling is due to tiny particles (aerosoles) both are the product of human activities particularly combustion of fossil fuels. They can be minimize by replacing fossil fuels with other green alternatives. In my opinion global warming is more severe than global cooling similar in a way that the increasing blood pressure is more threatning as compare to low blood pressure.
Kenneth
I see that spraying of seasalt in the Arctic was not a 1974 option. It is been studied a rather cheap simple and immediate option.
There is following information on the internet:
(https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/)
A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.
They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.
Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.
The researchers first proposed these balloon experiments in a 2014 paper. But at a geoengineering conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Keith said they have begun engineering design work with Arizona test balloon company World View Enterprises. They’ve also started discussions about the appropriate governance structure for such an experiment, and they plan to set up an independent body to review their proposals.
“We would like to have the first flights next year,” he said at the Forum on U.S. Solar Geoengineering Research, held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
In an earlier interview with MIT Technology Review, Keith stressed that the experiments would not be a binary test of geoengineering itself. But they should provide useful information about the proposed method that he has closely studied, known as solar radiation management.
The basic idea is that spraying certain types of particles into the stratosphere could help reflect more heat back into space. Scientists believe it could work because nature already does it. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have blasted tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the sky, which contributed to lower global temperatures in subsequent months.
What’s less clear is how precisely the technique could control worldwide temperatures, what materials would work best, and what the environmental side effects might be. Notably, previous volcanic eruptions have also decreased precipitation levels in parts of the world, and sulfur dioxide is known to deplete the protective ozone layer.
Keith has previously used computer modeling to explore the possibility of using other materials that may have a neutral impact on ozone, including diamond dust and alumina. Late last year, he, Keutsch, and others published a paper that found using calcite, a mineral made up of calcium carbonate, “may cool the planet while simultaneously repairing the ozone layer.”
The balloon tests could provide additional insight into how these chemicals actually interact with precursors to ozone in the real world and offer additional information that could help refine their understanding of solar geoengineering, he says: “You have to go measure things in the real world because nature surprises you.”
Is it time for scientists to begin geoengineering-related experiments in the open air?
Tell us what you think.
Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials.
Funding for the initial experiments would come from grants that Harvard provided Keith and Keutsch as new professors. Additional funds may come from Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, a multidisciplinary effort launching this spring to study feasibility, risks, ethics, and governance issues surrounding geoengineering. As of press time, it had raised more than $7 million from Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, the Hewlett Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Harvard-internal funds, and other philanthropists.
Geoengineering critics argue that the climate system is too complex to meddle with, that the environmental risks are too high, or that even talking about technological “fixes” could ease pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was quickly scuttled in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent.
In an earlier interview, Jane Long, a former associate director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, stressed that researchers moving forward with geoengineering experiments need to go to great lengths to ensure proper public notification, opportunities for input, and appropriate oversight, particularly if they’re relying on private funds. But she said it’s time to begin seriously studying the technology’s potential given the growing dangers of climate change.
“We should have started a decade ago,” she said. “It’s critical to know as much as we can as soon as we can.”
Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Former Director General PCSIR, Karachi
Here is some more:
World's Largest Geoengineering Study Triggers Major Controversy
(http://www.ecowatch.com/harvard-geoengineering-study-2340292654.html)
In an effort to cool the atmosphere, Harvard University will inject aerosols 12 miles into the atmosphere, leading the charge on the largest geoengineering study to ever take place.
The first two "small-scale" dispersals will consist of water and calcium carbonate—two naturally occurring aerosols that regulate Earth's radiation balance. The idea is to mimic a volcanic eruption, which has been shown in previous studies to have some offsetting effects to atmospheric temperature. Scientist plan to have this first step completed by 2022.
If the first stage is successful, a limestone compound would then be used, which scientists believe will act as a shield against incoming solar radiation and not deplete the ozone layer.
The project was launched following a major conference in Washington, DC last week. Funding for this effort is being provided by Bill Gates and other foundations. This massive $20 million project is believed to be the last hope to combat climate change, or could become the drastic measure for scientists if all other climate action fails.
"[It's] a terrifying prospect," Frank Keutsch, Harvard professor and lead scientist, said. "At the same time, we should never choose ignorance over knowledge in a situation like this."
But, there is cause for concern. Mimicking an eruption could be fatal, such as the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815, which caused disease, crop failure and ultimately famine, killing more than 200,000 people. There is a lot of uncertainty about a project at this level and the vast majority of scientists disagree with the approach, saying it is not thought out and could be catastrophic.
Scientists at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, studied five geoengineering schemes and concluded they're "either relatively ineffective with limited warming reductions, or they have potentially severe side effects and cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change."
And, as David Suzuki warned, "These unintended consequences come partly from our tendency to view things in isolation, without understanding how all nature is interconnected. We're now facing the most serious unintended consequence ever: climate change from burning fossil fuels. Some proposed solutions may also result in unforeseen outcomes."
Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Although this diverts from the original question, I find Abdul Majeed Khan's statement very interesting: "Global warming is due to greenhouse gases whereas global cooling is due to tiny particles (aerosols) both are the product of human activities particularly combustion of fossil fuels". However, It is difficult to understand that 'human activities could produce aerosols capable of initiating various glacial and inter-glacial epochs of Earth's history. In my humble opinion, whatever be the cause of climate change, scaling-up SAG for whatever reason is not a wise idea.. Even if this was to be done, it would require scientists from all fields of science to sit and deliberate on the complex subject that is the Earth System, rather than being left in the hands of a hand-full of scientists..
dr Beg
We all can read so a mere reference is sufficient iso of copy paste
Ken
The fossil fuel needed is small compared to the possible temperature reduction
It is seen as a temporary hold so that time is gained for cheaper solutions
In my opinion, this is one of the most revealing and dangerous statements about SAG: 'Unlike the control of greenhouse gas emissions, which must be undertaken by all major emitting nations to be effective and is likely to be costly, geoengineering could be undertaken quickly and unilaterally by a single party, at relatively low cost. Unilateral geoengineering, however, is highly likely to impose costs on other countries and run risks with the entire planet’s climate system'.
This is taken from the Technical briefing notes of the Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering.
http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geoengineering-workshop-on-unilateral-planetary-scale-geoengineering/pr1364
Ken
Why is Jim Hansen in every entry of yours
This is on geoengineering and thus NOT on CO2
Anthony
You give a link but the citation is not there
Therefore
Who made this statement
What is the status
Harry, if you just click on the link, you will have acess to the technical briefing notes of the workshop in PDF..
Ken
There are scientists and grumblers
Hansen is a scientist; apparently you never read ANY of his scientific peer-reviewed articles. This here is ResearhGate and we expect communication on research/science not on clippings from tabloids
Anthony
I read the summary and now what?
1. workshop of whom for what also 9 years ago
2. Noticed the name of Wolfowitz so might be neo-cons
Again: not all that is written is important
The question remains
-what was the status of the workshop and group of people involved
-what happened in the more recent years re geoengineering
Great questions Harry.. if you find this question interesting, and the subject concerning, you would rather research further.. I do not have the answers.. I am simply suggesting that this is an issue worth taken seriously.. I included the link to a review I wrote on geo-engineering in 2014.. That means I am not ignorant of what is going on.. Do some research on the issue and maybe provide some answers rather than further questions... If you do not know about the CFR, you may like to investigate that too..
Ken
A clipping is a clipping without any context. Have the patience to thru a report to start with
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201701
As for 200 years of CO2: where do you have that from? It is a mere 50-60 years
Anthony
Recent is the Gates-supported project
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/05/10/bill-gates-funds-the-most-benign-form-of-geoengineering-ships-that-spray-seawater-to-seed-clouds/#.WPRo0bu1vIU
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/ship-sprayed-seawater-cloud-making-v2-0/
Ken
What is your complaint now on GISS?
And you found the data yourself! And again you come with 1998 the year with an extreme el nino: what about it: a month is not climate
Why does your CO2 graph stop in 2009?
Based on my findings, it is the changes in the solar irradiance cycle that is the primary cause of the cyclical variation of temperature on Earth, as well as drives El Nino/La Nina and PDO cycles etc. Contrary to popular theory, the solar maximum of 1914-1975, is forced most of the temperature change we're experiencing today, amplified by positive and negative feedback mechanisms, predominantly water vapour, Clouds, CO2 and aerosols. The solar optimum of 1976-2003 will continue to drive the rising trend of SST and stronger El Nino/La Ninas between 2016-2043. At this point, equilibrium will be reached and the effects of the current solar minimum will set in, driving a significant decrease in temperatures.
The reason for the delayed response of temperature relative to changes in solar irradiance is due to the maximum lag of 41years cause by the ocean's thermal inertia. This therefore means that the Oceans are heated from above (the sun), but Earth's atmosphere is heated from below (the oceans); GHG especially water vapour and Co2 trap the heat emitted from the ocean and re-radiate it downwards; atmospheric circulation and ocean currents redistribute the moisture and warmth around the World. Yesterday, I stumbled on a study by Hansen (2005) which estimates the climate lag time is between 25 to 50 years (In my study, the best correlations bw TSI and SST) occur at the 24.5, 34.5 and 41.5 year lags).
This is a project i've been working on since 2013, and still on it. recently, I found a recent study by a team of researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern.
Their "Research findings using elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years; For the first time, a significant effect is apparent; They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum".
The problem with this study is that it fails to understand the concept of equilibrium in the climate system brought about by the interaction between solar irradiance, ocean's thermal inertia and earth's feedback mechanisms. Moreover, it doesn't state when the next solar minimum is expected, and remains adamant (deceptively so) to the point that the decline in temperatures will do little to stop the run-away AGW.
That said, returning to the original question, large scale SAG/SRM could rapidly destabilize global climate systems and bring about rapid cooling, especially if it coincides with the period of 2043 onwards when equilibrium and natural cooling will set in motion.
Given the finding that global mean temperatures will increase rapidly between 2016-2043, following the end of the recent hiatus, forced mainly by the lagged effect of the solar optimum, this could be used as a pretext to set in motion large scale SRM.
As a species that some times makes logical and rational decisions, do we intend to find ourselves freezing and our crop and economic systems failing due to the unscrupulous actions of a few overzealous and narrow-minded physicists and their corporate financiers, or we ought to do something about it?
Is this a legitimate issue that requires a global march and peaceful protest?
Is the recent march for science coupled with the ongoing iron curtain of climate science, just another diversionary tactic to keep us looking elsewhere?
does this march for science also include the right to carry out potentially harmful experiments on the Earth, humans and animals?
I think it's time to get our science right, our minds clear and our objectives right, and begin to realize that more is going on than meets the eye...
http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx
Kenneth. Take some quit time away and think hard. Perhaps you can figure out that the problem is. I hope it will not be so bad that we will need to change the earth's orbit or angle to the sun.
Kenneth. Just keep quiet and avoid the huffing and puffing while real scientist solve this. As I wrote Copenhagen weather was fine. Do you require a picture?
How was your march? Walking backwards should be healthy by it requires some mental ability to learn a new way of moving. At least we can be sure your march wasn't crowded. Any ducks along your route?
So sad. Copenhagen was sunny. I think it can be unhealthy for old people like you to walk in the snow, but hopefully you got a few of your 100 gigatons removed. Is it possible to ski backwards?
Ken
NO as for the Anthony entry: he throws it lately in whatever the question is
Harry,
You are right.. related questions. Climate change, the march for science, the hiatus.. geo-engineering... these are all intertwined issues... So I think that shouldn't be an issue..
Kenneth, you should keep this kind of pictures away from the internet. Once is is there it can never go away. How much whisky did you drink? I hope the bear was already dead then you got the idea.
Then why do you persist in promoting the really bad idea? Skiing up the slope?
We have been repeating the plan many times during your trolling campaigns while you have been an ass and not listing.
No animals harmed in producing this picture. Your picture Kenneth?
I strongly agree with this, but what would you then write about in your 20+ daily comments.
Perhaps you could just end promoting the idea to "..bury 100 billion metric tons of CO2..". Nobody else writes about this on RG but you.
The subject of this question is Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering which has nothing to do with CO2 removal.
You're right on this one Henrik... this thread is about SAG/SRM. Listen to the foremost spokespersons of SRM express his ignorance of the Earth-system while promoting his untested and probably irrelevant (and dangerous) ideology..
Who in his right mindset could honestly prefer enveloping the earth's atmosphere in sulfuric acid aerosols and aluminum aerosols, rather than CO2, a gas which all living things emit via the natural process of respiration?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37jKzec4u2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nshn8-PP4yo&spfreload=10
You are right Ken: when you resort to youtube and blogs the scientific discussion is dead
Ken
Science is not based on blogs and/or youtube and certainly not on anecdotal clippings like your last one. What is your lesson for us from those outdated messages of 40 years ago?
Kenneth, if you agree with your citation from Kellogg and Schneider that "To tamper with the system that determines the livelihood and life styles of people the world over would be the height of irresponsibility if we could not adequately foresee the outcome." then explain how it isn't irresponsible to add vast amounts of CO2 which has a longer residence time in the atmosphere.
Has there been any other motivation for the geoengineering experiment with SAG other than to partially reverse the warming caused by the increased CO2?
Harry,
In my opinion, a Youtube video which is an interview and lecture by one of the foremost protagonists of SAG/SRM, relating to the subject of this thread, is as valid as their scores of peer reviewed publications on the topic..
Aleš Kralj:
"Which has the greatest potential for large scale societal disruption : a 2 deg c rise or a 2 deg c drop in global mean temperature?"... I guess this is a valid question which we should all ponder on..
However, there may be worst than the temperature change in the pipeline: widespread amplification of atmospheric pollution with PM10 aerosols which could most definitely compound in health hazards...That is what the geo-engineers themselves have not a clue..
Henrik,
"Has there been any other motivation for the geoengineering experiment with SAG other than to partially reverse the warming caused by the increased CO2?"
You pose a good question...; But do you think adding far worst pollutants (sulphuric acid, alluminum aerosols, diamond dust etc) into the atmosphere, in addition to the much dreaded CO2, makes the problem go away or actually compound it?
Moreover, judging from the number of patents related to SRM (see attached) filed long before global warming became a problem seems to suggest that there may be more to this than just AGW..: weather warfare? am not sure but form your own opinion...
Cheers
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/links-to-geoengineering-patents/
Anthony, adding particles to the stratosphere doesn't make problems go away but theoretically it can partially reverse the warming. If it is the best solution it requires very careful investigations and quantitative consideration of the effects.
I don't think it is a good idea so I don't spend time on it but I welcome that researchers that specialise on atmospheric particles does research on this.
To me the only realistic solution is to replace most of the fossil fuel use by other energy sources over a few decades. It has the advantage of being researched to a level there it is known to be possible.
Anthony
You should study the scientific papers and then you notice that the amounts of SO2 and thus aerosol in the STRATOSPHERE is such that it DOES not significantly increase PM10.
Do not confuse the items of stratospheric change e and air pollution (at the level at which we breathe air). To give you a definite answer: almost all of the aerosol formed in the stratosphere will not reach the surface because it will be washed out by rain. Furthermore the stratospheric aerosol is spread over a very large area as compared to local air pollution
Kenneth, this is complete nonsense and has no connection to that I said: Low positive emission is different from negative emission which there are no quantitative significant method for. I am calling your strawman.
Your citations is sourceless but nevertheless it only talks of reduction in emissions. Beware that strawmen are flammable.
Kenneth, if you agree with your citation from Kellogg and Schneider that "To tamper with the system that determines the livelihood and life styles of people the world over would be the height of irresponsibility if we could not adequately foresee the outcome." then explain how it isn't irresponsible to add vast amounts of CO2 which has a longer residence time in the atmosphere than stratospheric aerosols.
Has there been any other motivation for the geoengineering experiment with SAG other than to partially reverse the warming caused by the increased CO2?
Harry:
Thanks for the correction.
" Do not confuse the items of stratospheric change e and air pollution (at the level at which we breathe air). To give you a definite answer: almost all of the aerosol formed in the stratosphere will not reach the surface because it will be washed out by rain".
I will look into this.
But don't you think the pattern of rainfall could be disrupted due to enhanced atmospheric reflectivity? what about chemical or acid rains? could this become a real threat under accelerated SAG/SRM?
The idea is to curb global warming, therefore the planned spraying is intended to be of global proportions. Moreover, since the spraying is intend to mimick the effects of large volcanic eruptions, how can we not assume that the unintended consequence, worsening global atmospheric pollution, should outweigh the intended goal of mitigating warming?
I guess you may not be surprised to find out that even the geo-engineers themselves do not have the answers to these basic questions...
Cheers?
Harry:
" To give you a definite answer: almost all of the aerosol formed in the stratosphere will not reach the surface because it will be washed out by rain. Furthermore the stratospheric aerosol is spread over a very large area as compared to local air pollution"
According to NOAA Earth Observatory, 'the stratosphere does not have rain clouds as a mechanism to quickly wash out pollutants. Therefore, a heavy influx of aerosol pollutants, like the plume from Mount Pinatubo, will remain in the stratosphere for years until the processes of chemical reactions and atmospheric circulation can filter them out'.
Cheers
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510
Anthony
It was in response to your remark that stratospheric aerosol gives increased PM10 air pollution.
Air pollution is not an issue in the stratosphere but applies to the levels at inhalation height for people
Kenneth, trolling a little red heering that pretend CFCs and ozone are related to Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG)!
Kenneth, If you agree with your citation from Kellogg and Schneider that "To tamper with the system that determines the livelihood and life styles of people the world over would be the height of irresponsibility if we could not adequately foresee the outcome" then explain how it isn't irresponsible to add vast amounts of CO2 which has a longer residence time in the atmosphere than stratospheric aerosols.
Has there been any other motivation for the geoengineering experiment with SAG other than to partially reverse the warming caused by the increased CO2?
Ken
I was commenting on the remarks by Anthony
He wrote that putting aerosol in the stratosphere would increase "PM10" levels
PM10 is a measure for pollution at ground level. I showed him that the stratospheric aerosol is of no significance for that
Anthony:
Rather than stratospheric aerosol I am in favour of aerosol in the arctic regions to enhance the reflection of solar light there. This is via the enhanced reflection of clouds. The aerosol is seasalt, the natural ingredient that leads to cloud formation there anyhow
Kenneth, attack or ignore, if you agree with your OWN citation from Kellogg and Schneider that "To tamper with the system that determines the livelihood and life styles of people the world over would be the height of irresponsibility if we could not adequately foresee the outcome" then explain how it isn't irresponsible to add vast amounts of CO2 which has a longer residence time in the atmosphere than stratospheric aerosols.
Has there been any other motivation for the geoengineering experiment with SAG other than to partially reverse the warming caused by the increased CO2?
Which scenario is correct for 21st century regarding CO2?
Are "Can ESM RCP45", "CMCC CM RCP 45", "CMCC-CM_RCP45", "CNRM-CM5_RCP 85", "HadGEM2-ES_RCP 85" scenarios reasonable for use in climate modelling?
Many thanks, Margarit Nistor!
Ken
You are confusing items
1. There is natural variability in the weather and therefore a longer period is needed to average such variability out like ninos
2. 120 ppm of CO2 is a 40% increase and this is for the most part in the past 50 years NOT over 200 years. Why do you claim that long period
3. An increase of 0.8 C is large in a period of half a century compared to changes in the past like the little ice age, with a decrease in temp of a similar amount
Kenneth, You sneer "It is irresponsible to assert that if we don't lower CO2 the climate may get warmer" but you are supposedly answering to that I challenged you on that we are "irresponsible to add vast amounts of CO2". Adding (more) or lowering CO2 appears different actions to most!
You are (again) running your strawman routine of turning GHG-emission reduction to carbon burial so you can attack how difficult that would be at large scale.
"Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including: Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
Ken
ENSO is a natural on-and-off phenomenon; so what does it have to do with CO2 and temperature increase
1856? is that a climate unit?
Well .. Dr. Hansen has left NASA some years ago and his recent paper that you suggested as proof yesterday for his promotion of carbon burial specifically warns about that unless we reduce GHG emissions drastically and soon we will force the next generation to have to use this approach. This can be summed up in just two sentences from the abstract of the paper: "If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, most of the necessary CO2 extraction can take place via improved agricultural and forestry practices, ... In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by the current generation would place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 extraction, if they are to limit climate change"
The Paris Agreements aim is summed in just 9 lines on Wikipedia. I can read about "low greenhouse gas emissions development" and "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible", but no mentioning of the use of carbon extraction and burial. Perhaps your experienced eyes can find this and present it to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Aims
Article Young people's burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions
I got a few questions going in the direction the discussion in now taking:
Since El Nino is indisputably a natural phenomenon with the history of super El Ninos going as far back as the 19thCentury, and since major climatic catastrophes from record floods to droughts, and associated famines and deaths are related to EL Nino, why then don't we see the kind of international commitment and attention given to AGW? Why don't we have an international body of scientist and policy-makers of equal statute as IPCC, dedicated to advancing understanding of ENSO? Why aren't there annual international meetings of the magnitude of the AGW COP , meetings focusing on ENSO?
I think these are legitimate questions that ought to be addressed because El Nino / ENSO tseems to be the real deal..; a phenomenon that increases or decreases temperatures by approximately 1 deg c more or less, over the course of a year or two, is to be taken more seriously than the gradual increase in temperature by 2 deg c over the course of more than half a century..
Cheers
Ken
1. CO2 and nino is the other way around:
he nino increases temperature above average
2. 1856: for global temperature? again, CO2 is only effective since around 1960 given its atmospheric concentration at that time compared to that say around 1860. Variations before that period are most likely natural
Ken
Exactly: ENSO has nothing to do with global warming while CO2 does
Ken
What does this clipping then add?
but what is the context of this sentence of this Mickey Glantz
Ken
This is hardly a reference: look at the title what he uses as his references: newspapers etc
It has been stated by climatologists over and over that the ENSO phenomenon is not "predictable"; so why this obscure guy in obscure journal with obscure figures and obscure text? Sounds like a childs play
Ken
As others have shown here you always turn things upside down
Why should I approach a charlatan? the key issue is the unpredictability and for that I do not need such a guy
How come you always find these brochures that suit you instead of once reading the real science starting with the scientific IPCC AR5 report part 1
Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering has nothing to do with carbon extraction and burial. Again.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Horticulture