Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The need to promote geo-engineering to stop AGW
#21
Friends:

Thankyou for your interest in this subject.  I have refrained from replying for a while because I did not want to inhibit others from their discussion of my suggestion.

Questioning_Clir makes some good points.  Firstly, he observes that the idea is beginning to gain some traction: even Lomborg has had ‘the penny drop’.  This pleases me because I have been suggesting it for some years.

In my opinion the imminence of the Copenhagen Conference has forced people to think in terms of practical politics.  Until recently few climate realists have thought this way.

And the recent success in Australia demonstrates that direct involvement in the political process is a practical method for those who support science against superstition to use to defend against immediate implementation of harmful AGW-policies by governments.

I accept that AGW-supporters will make all the assertions that Questioning_Clir suggests (and I can add to his list of assertions they can be anticipated to make).  But so what?  Let the scaremongers say what they will.  Until now climate realists have been defending against what the scaremongers propose.  I am suggesting a method to put them on the defensive against a proposal from climate realists.

And the scaremongers would have a problem with the proposal.  They cannot argue greater risk because according to them AGW is the greatest risk.  They cannot argue greater cost because the proposed policy is cheaper.  They cannot …

Also, as Mike Davis says, if the geo-engineering were to be required then it could be addressed regionally.  Therefore, e.g. Canada could be allowed to warm while e.g. the Middle East is kept cool.  And average global temperature could be constrained by most of the geo-engineering being over oceans and far from land.  So everybody would benefit and nobody would lose.

Personally, I think the geo-engineering would never be needed, but the AGW-alarmists claim we can alter climate by GHG emissions to obtain harm, so they would have a problem asserting that we cannot alter climate to obtain benefit.

Additionally, the proposed policy has an important spin-off that nobody seems to have picked-up. If the policy were to be adopted then funding for climate research would need to be targeted at developing the potential methods for the geo-engineering and away from climate modelling.  This removal of excessive funds from the modellers would permit climate science to return to being real science.  This spin-off is almost as important to me as the purpose of the policy (i.e. to halt damaging constraints on GHG emissions).

Richard
Reply
#22
Friends:

In retrospect, I think I need to add a point of clarification to my above post.

Sunsettommy is right when he says my main reason for proposing this policy is:

“I think his main goal is to have the empty suits get away from the cap and trade and other ruinous economic proposals, to talk about Geo-engineering, as a way out of a hole they stupidly put themselves in.”

Richard
Reply
#23
Richard:

Quote:Additionally, the proposed policy has an important spin-off that nobody seems to have picked-up. If the policy were to be adopted then funding for climate research would need to be targeted at developing the potential methods for the geo-engineering and away from climate modelling.  This removal of excessive funds from the modellers would permit climate science to return to being real science.  This spin-off is almost as important to me as the purpose of the policy (i.e. to halt damaging constraints on GHG emissions).

LOL,

I never thought of that angle at all.

It would be nice for real science be funded,and have climate modeling be returned to a minor niche in research.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#24
I've been following this discussion and I have to say I'm glad I refrained from joining the chorus of objections early on since Richard has provided answers to most of them.

I will say this, however-I still worry that the promotion of geo-engineering may 1. Actually lead to steps being taken to "engineer" the climate, in which case a serious danger for "over compensation" occurs, given the fact that the CO2 warming effect has definitely been greatly exaggerated. and 2. As pointed out above, will lead to the reaction that at this point NO ONE (or a "consensus" in converse form) disputes the need for "drastic action"-this is antithetical to reality, where in fact I urge "caution" in reacting to global warming which includes 1. doing things we'd do anyway, like slowly move off of fossil fuels as new technologies become viable and 2. adapt to inevitable changes whether human induced or not (none of which requires central planning, so naturally politically unpopular, especially with the Left) and 3. Maximize our adaptive capacity through full exploitation of the resources available to us to spur economic growth (that is, continue to use fossil fuels as long as they are the best available energy source, which is again the opposite of the current road we are heading down, but the natural logical path to take.

I have one hope-that geoengineering and all other "policies" can be hopelessly bogged down in bureaucratic debate (Big government inefficiency saves freedom? Imagine that!!). Here's one way that might work.

"I move that the climate of my state be made warmer by x degrees and rainier by y inches blah blah blah"

"Amendment two subjection A 569 B paragraph 8-The climate of the state z is mandated to be cooled by v degrees by n date..."

In other words, I'm hoping for a Healthy Debate (HA!) along the lines of "Just what do you want the climate to be?" and that every Senator and Congresswoman has outrageous demands for "pork" weather for their State.

Oh God that's a funny concept. Reps bring home the bacon in the form of better weather?

That would not only expose the farce, but also would probably drag out until the climatic trajectory of the future is much clearer and even alarmists begin to back down from claiming dangerous changes.

But could it happen? Dunno. Probably not...
Reply
#25
Itscoldinnhere:

You say;
"I will say this, however-I still worry that the promotion of geo-engineering may 1. Actually lead to steps being taken to "engineer" the climate, in which case a serious danger for "over compensation" occurs, given the fact that the CO2 warming effect has definitely been greatly exaggerated."

Please note that the policy is to do nothing unless and until real effects of real AGW are detected in the real world.

However, if the geo-engineering were perfected then it could be used locally.  Such use would be problematic because the effect of its use on a neighbour could be regarded as an agressive act.  (This is similar to the effect of using a water supply in a manner that prevents its use downstream).  Negotiation and care would be needed prior to any local use of the geo-engineering.

Of course, the technology could also be mis-used as a weapon of war but this is true of any technology (remember aircraft, high explosives, agent orange, ...).  Control of the weapon would be similar to that of mis-use of any technology for warfare (e.g.  international agreements banning chemical and biological weapons).

All these matters provide possibility of endless international negotiations.  But I do not think they will get more "bogged down" than the existing negotiations prior to the Copenhagen Conference in December.  The difference is that there is pressure to 'do something' in Copenhagen - and any decision would be harmful - but there would be no urgency to reach agreement on a local geo-engineering proposal.

Richard
Reply
#26
[quote author=Richard S Courtney link=topic=183.msg1277#msg1277 date=1250324530]
  Please note that the policy is to do nothing unless and until real effects of real AGW are detected in the real world.
[/quote]

Richard,

this may be where your proposition will fail.

We are talking about a large group of "do something, even if it is wrong" people.

Doing "nothing, even if it is right" is not an option with them.

Waiting until it is actually shown that there is a cause and effect is entirely too inconvenient for them.

Now, if we can find a way to convince them that they are actually doing something, while doing nothing, this may work.


I am still concerned, however, that even the suggestion that carbon removal through geo-engineering would work, might be construed as an admission that the increasing CO2 atmospheric levels actually is a problem.

Just thinking out loud.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#27
JohnWho:

Thankyou for your "thinking out loud".

I do not share your fears for one simple reason; viz. any reduction of the problem we have now is an improvement.

As you say:
"We are talking about a large group of "do something, even if it is wrong" people.
Doing "nothing, even if it is right" is not an option with them."

But the policy is to ask them to do something, in fact, to do two things;  i.e.
1.  Establish a research effort to deal with the "emergency" they proclaim.
2.  Negotiate implementation of the new measures.

They can shout that this is a 'do nothing policy' but that would not wash with the public/electorate, especially if the relative costs are stated.

I understand your fear that taking nothing off the table would give give succour to the scaremongers, but I do not share it.  They would be on the back foot (a cricketing term) whereas now there is no substantive method to oppose what they are advocating.  At present carbon capture and sequestration is being imposed at tremendous human and financial cost.  The policy I am proposing would be to accept that such actions may become necessary, but there is no reason to adopt them unless and until such things are seen to be needed.

Simply, we are in favour of actions so long as those actions are rational and not merely because they are a reaction to superstitious fear.  But harmful actions in response to the superstitious fear of AGW are being imposed now:  they need to be stopped.

What do we have to lose?

Richard
Reply
#28
Richard,

Sorry to be a little delayed in the thread.  I would like to make one point in reference to your statement "If the policy were to be adopted then funding for climate research would need to be targeted at developing the potential methods for the geo-engineering and away from climate modelling."  Whilst I would like to think this is the way it would pan out, it is far more likely that the modellers would make the case that they require more funding to assess the effect of the proposed geo-engineering whether it be on a local or global scale.  After all, how will they know how much 'whatever' to apply, for how long, where, etc?  Of course further monitoring will also be necessary ... jobs for the boys.  It seems highly unlikely that their funding will be reduced and may even go up.

On this basis, it is my opinion that we will have to just accept that there could well be consequences that are, shall we say, adverse?  That said, it is a relatively minor concern.  Ultimately, the lack of predictive skill will undermine them, and indeed as the public becomes more aware and less tolerant, as we are starting to see with the MetOffice, the politicians will come under increasing pressure.  This in turn will eventually lead to questions and potentially a sensible response ... okay, I dreaming now, but one can hope!
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#29
I believe Richard is absolutely correct in that we have to put forward something that is deemed as 'doing something', preferably something that can be photographed and shown around the world.  Politicians have to be literally 'seen' to have solutions no matter how stupid, as we all know, at least in the UK.  Thus trying to stop them without an alternative is a non-starter.  Richard's proposal gives them the 'get-out' and is something that is not easy to argue against, on either side (I'm ready to be shot down on that!).  Although possible lines of attack might be that 'it is too late', not possible, or other vagaries.  Technical challenges and long implementation times could be seen as delaying tactics.

In the end what other option do we have?
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#30
Quote:Thus trying to stop them without an alternative is a non-starter.

Bingo!

Quote:Richard's proposal gives them the 'get-out' and is something that is not easy to argue against, on either side (I'm ready to be shot down on that!).

The alarmists would find it hard to shoot down a proposal to cool down the atmosphere,otherwise they would lose their leverage with the absurd cap and tax trade legislation that purports doing the same thing at much greater cost and economic damage.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#31
Friends:

I write to inform that my views on this matter are gaining some support.  I have been arguing them on the JunkScience.com forum in similar terms to those I have put here.  As a result, JunkScience is to cease their opposition to the 'geo-engineering option'.

Today I posted the following on their forum.

Richard

***********

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry:

Thankyou for your news about the JunkScience policy meeting.  You ask me:
“can you start the ball rolling with a column submission (750-1500 words)”.

I offer the following for your consideration.  It is 1,133 words including its headline.


STOPPING CLIMATE CHANGE

There is need for a new policy on climate change to replace the rush to reduce emissions.  The attempts at emissions reduction have failed but there is a ‘Climate Change Policy’ that would work.

Climate change is a serious problem.  All governments need to address it, and most do.

In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and always will.  He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy since.

But now it is feared that emissions from industry could cause additional climate change by warming the globe.  This threatens more sea level rise, droughts, floods, heat waves and much else.  So, governments have attempted to reduce the emissions of the warming gases, notably carbon dioxide. 

The UN established the Kyoto Protocol which limits the emissions from developed countries until year 2012.  But the Kyoto Protocol failed.  It has had no detectable effect on the emissions which continue to rise.  Now the pressure is on to get a successor to that Protocol for after 2012, and negotiations are being held around the world to decide the new treaty at a conference in Copenhagen in December. 

But the negotiations have stalled.  All industrial activity releases the emissions.  Developing countries say they will not limit their emissions, and industrialised countries have problems reducing theirs.  China releases more of the emissions than any other country, is industrialising, and says it is entitled to the same emissions per head of population as the US.  So, China says it intends to increase its emissions more than four fold.  India says the same.  The US is having problems adopting a ‘Cap & Trade’ policy that would harm American industries and force industries from America to China.  The EU adopted a ‘Cap & Trade’ policy that collapsed and has not affected the EU’s rising emissions.  The Australian Parliament has recently rejected a similar policy.

Politicians have been responding to the failure of the Kyoto Protocol by showing they are ‘doing something’.  They have adopted pointless and expensive impositions on energy industries, energy supplies and transportation.  And the public is paying the large costs of this in their energy bills.

The Copenhagen Conference will provide a decision because it has to, but that decision will have no more effect than the Kyoto Protocol. And this will put more pressure on the politicians to be seen to be ‘doing something’ with further cost and harm to peoples and to industry.

There is as yet no clear evidence that the additional climate change is happening.  But environmental groups are pressing the politicians to act “before it is too late”.  And politicians are responding because of the fear of dire consequences from the additional climate change.

Politicians have decided how much additional climate change is acceptable, because they have decided that global temperature must not be allowed to rise to 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century.  But they need a method to overcome the urgency which is forcing them to do things and to agree things which do not work.

There is an available solution to the problem.  The urgency is because of fear that the effects of the emissions may be irreversible.  However, the additional climate change can be reversed, quickly, simply and cheaply.  This provides a complete solution to the problems.

There is no need for the Copenhagen Conference to reach a forced, inadequate, and premature agreement on emissions.  The Conference needs to decide funding to perfect the methods to reverse the additional climate change if and when that becomes necessary.  This decision would give politicians decades of time to conduct their negotiations about what to do to limit the emissions.  So, the politicians can agree actions that work instead of adopting things everybody knows do not work.

The solution addresses the cause of the fear of the additional climate change.  Every sunbather has noticed it cools when a cloud covers the Sun, and this is because clouds reflect sunlight to cause negative radiative forcing.  The fear of the additional climate change is based on an assumption that global temperature is determined by net radiative forcing, and the emissions induce additional positive radiative forcing. 

The forcing can be altered in many ways.  An increase to cloud cover of a single percent would more than compensate for the warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air.  There are several ways to increase cloud cover, for example small amounts of sulphates, dust, salt or water released from scheduled aircraft would trigger additional cloud formation. And the carbon dioxide in the air is very unlikely to increase so much that it doubles.

And there are many other ways to reflect sunlight so it is not absorbed by the ground.  Crops could be chosen for reflectivity, roofs could be covered with reflective materials, and tethered balloons could be covered in reflective material.

Each of these options would be very much cheaper than constraining the emissions by 20 per cent for a single year.  So, any delay to implementation of emission constraints by use of these options would save a lot of money.

Global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 and has been stable since.  But it could start to rise again.  If it does then use of one or more of these options could be adopted when global temperature nears 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century.  This would be a cheap and effective counter measure while the needed emission constraints are imposed.  Indeed, it would be much cheaper than the emission constraints.  It could be started and stopped rapidly, and its effect would be instantaneous (as sunbathers have noticed when a cloud passes in front of the Sun).

Until then there would be no need for expensive ‘seen to be doing something’ actions such as capturing and storing carbon dioxide.  Energy and financial policies would not need to be distorted, and developing countries could be allowed to develop unhindered.

Indeed, there would be no need to deploy the counter measures unless and until global temperature rises to near the trigger of 2 degrees C rise.

The various methods for reflecting sunlight need to be developed and perfected.  They each have potential benefits and problems which need to be assessed.  But if the problems are detectable they need not be significant.  For example, the additional cloud cover could be induced over oceans distant from land.  This requires much research.

Politicians know they need to be seen to be ‘doing something’ and they would be seen to be doing something worthwhile.  Each counter measure experiment and demonstration provides opportunity for media coverage.

Richard
Reply
#32
Uh, too much common sense there, Richard.

Politician's aren't know for that attribute, so this may be a problem.

I'll help support the idea whenever/wherever I can, though. 

Maybe there are enough Politicians with advisors with common sense that it could influence some?

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#33
JohnWho:

Thankyou for your support.

The "common sense" is intended for non-scientists.  It needs to be advocated to the public, media and politicians.

If the public wants the change of policy and the media supports the change then the politicians can be expected to follow. And the politicians would still have their excuse for raising taxes to save "our children and our children's children" because they could say the money is needed for the research:  there is precedent for this in the Apollo Project which justified large tax increases in the US because it was seen as a way to respond to a perceived threat to "our way of life" (the money was really used to finance US activities in Indo-China).

But I take your point.  When writing for politicians the sensible action is to write as one would for a 10-year old and, when finished, to simplify it before giving it to the politicians.

Richard
Reply
#34
I am re posting this from junkscience forum,it is a reaction to Richard S. Courtney's proposal to help politicians:

Quote:Richard, a policy meeting will take place Monday evening to formalize JunkScience.com's change in stance on certain aspects of geo-engineering. Meanwhile, can you start the ball rolling with a column submission (750-1500 words)? I'll see that it hits a lot of editors' desks and we'll see what coverage we can stir up.

Lurkers:
we need your help. Wherever you post let people know JunkScience.com has had a change of heart and now endorses anti-global warming action -- details to be announced this week. Let's get the word out and help Richard make global climate policy Smiley

Barry

http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?t...59#msg1359
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#35
This has to be some of the best news I have read concerning CC for as long as I can remember.
Congratulations, and brilliantly well done Richard.


Would this policy mean abandoning all the present Cap and Trade taxes, CO2 emissions taxes etc, in numerous countries almost immediately.
Would this mean the almost immediate abandonment of wind, wave and solar power unless viable economically against
proven generating technology and fuels, because there would be no need to subsidise so called "green" or renewables for the reasons presently given.
Would this save vast amounts of money today, just some of which could be used for geo-engineering solutions research.

Such solutions as,
Ships with giant funnels which travel the world's seas
creating more clouds to deflect the sun's rays
could help cut global warming, say scientists.

Telegraph.co.uk
7:58AM BST 07 Aug 2009


Excerpt,
[color=blue]These clouds, it is predicted, would reflect around one or two per cent of the sunlight
that would otherwise warm the ocean, thereby cancelling out
the greenhouse effect caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The unmanned ships would be directed by satellite to areas with
the best conditions for increasing cloud cover, mainly in the Pacific and
far enough away from land so as not to affect normal rainfall patterns.


This idea to my (limited) knowledge was (and still is) first proposed by
Professor Stephen Salter.
Division of Engineering, University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland.

The idea as such has been around for sometime now, an earlier pdf can be found at,
http://www.mech.ed.ac.uk/research/wavepo...%20Feb.pdf

I find it interesting how the idea was earlier described, and is more recently being described.
Not just the wording changes, but also how it is thought the effects will work.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#36
Derek:

Thankyou for your enthusiasm, but I ask for recognition that this is still only a small step on a long road. 

At last some climate realists have started to think about how to stop harmful political actions that science says are certainly not needed now and probably never would be needed.  but we need to get all climate realists 'on board' otherwise the 'dissent in the ranks' will devalue the proposal.  Then we need to promote the alternative policy to media and politicians.

If that promotion is successful in getting the policy agreed by governments then the answer to each of your questions is YES:  i.e. yes to
"Would this policy mean abandoning all the present Cap and Trade taxes, CO2 emissions taxes etc, in numerous countries almost immediately.
Would this mean the almost immediate abandonment of wind, wave and solar power unless viable economically against
proven generating technology and fuels, because there would be no need to subsidise so called "green" or renewables for the reasons presently given.
Would this save vast amounts of money today, just some of which could be used for geo-engineering solutions research."

But there is a long way to go before we get to there.  As you know, I have been advocating this for years but climate realists have refused to consider it until recently.

Richard
Reply
#37
Richard writes:

Quote:But there is a long way to go before we get to there.  As you know, I have been advocating this for years but climate realists have refused to consider it until recently.

Until you brought it up here and at junkscience forum,I never heard of it.

Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#38
Sunsettommy:

You say:
"Until you brought it up here and at junkscience forum, I never heard of it."

Which proves how little interest and support I have had in the matter until very recently.

So I am grateful for the ear which people have given me here.

Richard
Reply
#39
I see that over at Watts Up With That blog,they are missing the thrust of your guest post.

Sigh.

I see that my post there was one paragraph too large.

  :Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#40
Hi All,
Regarding the need to promote geo-engineering to stop AGW.

[quote author=Richard S Courtney link=topic=183.msg1342#msg1342 date=1250553370]
But there is a long way to go before we get to there.  As you know,
I have been advocating this for years but climate realists have refused to consider it until recently.

Richard
[/quote]

Yes, you have been a mostly lone voice, I have over the years had several tentative attempts to raise the subject on several forums.
Always immediately crushed, usually by staunch AGW modelling supporters.
I should of been far more robust in the defence and putting forward of the ideas,
at the time (and untill very recently) I probably did not realise the tactics being employed in such "discussions",
I am far more aware of such now..  
AND, the available (mostly from skeptics) climate science is far more supportive of such ideas / proposals than it was,
as skeptics have broadened the questions and topics being discussed in the open.

I choose the Salter example above to try to illustrate the point of how the understanding of the effects
has changed to more reasonably show and support at least some of geo-engineering (possible) solutions as proposed at present.

NB - Is it worth "us" concentrating on one thread to explain the idea / proposal at WUWT. ?
If so, which thread. ?
Is there already a thread that I have missed at WUWT, if so, my apologies. Can someone link to it please.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)