Geo-Engineering
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Geo-Engineering
(13-02-2013 10:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 10:43 AM)bemore Wrote:  I wanted somebody to debunk/discuss the things he has said about planetary changes... not the application of chemtrails or anything.

Ill have to go google the shit and try to teach myself.


You sort of missed my point. He completely lost credibility with his chemtrail/aerosol baloney.
Im not a big believer in Chemtrails as I have seen no actual solid proof for their existence. However my country has a vast history of not only secretly fiddling with the weather by experimenting with cloud seeding but also various methods of "germ warfare"

All for "security purposes"

So TBH it wouldnt surprise me if chemtrails were real, there just isnt any solid enough evidence to prove them... so I stay open minded on the subject.

If you could watch the Video BeardedDude I would be grateful.

You're never going to say the things you want to say.
The things you want to change will usually stay that way
The promises you break outweigh the ones you keep.
Paint upon the wall for the hundredth time.

Jesus Jones
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Geo-Engineering
First things first, this guy is confusing the term "Geo-engineering" with the idea of anthroprogenically-induced climate change.

Geo-engineering would be the intentional manipulation of the Earth system for the purpose of benefiting humans. Anthroprogenically-induced climate change would mean that humans are having an impact on climates as a result of our unique abilities to manipulate natural resources.

Methane clathrates are certainly interesting and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Rapid methane release has even been invoked in mass extinctions in Earth's past. The current rate of methane release is not yet that high (as he seems to suggest) and the a bigger reservoir right now is actually the tundras. There is a lot of plant and animal debris frozen in the tundra that is being thawed and decomposed, that releases methane too. So do cows, and humans, and indeed anything with a gut.

Saying that the Siberian clathrates have the potential to extinguish life on Earth is a huge overstep. It probably has enough methane to induce significant climate change, but that does not automatically mean all life dies. The climates change and life either responds or goes extinct. He is appealing to emotion here and is losing more credibility.

"The paradox is, the more they spray, the more they think they need to spray."
Who is spraying what? What are they spraying and why?

This guy also makes a huge mistake by trying to cite information on temperatures from single years, like areas of Antarctica being 50 degrees above normal (Fahrenheit? Celsius?). A) It is what we currently know as normal but 50 million years ago, there were palms and crocodiles above the Arctic circle. B) He kind of acknowledges the fact that his bs tactic works both ways as there are areas experiencing colder than normal temperatures. Climate change does not mean uniform change.

The thing about this guy is that he is using real data and real information, but he is reaching for his conclusions and connections. It is argument from ignorance when he reaches a conclusion out of thin air.

When he is talking about the nucleation and snow thing, I think what he is talking about is our attempts to seed clouds. If that is the case, then we know what we are using to do that. It is a silver compound if I remember correctly. And to date, nothing we have done seems to have had much of an impact on helping seed clouds with more moisture. (it is mainly done in an attempt to get more rain to arid areas like Las Vegas.)

Feedback loops are real too, but there is a big difference between positive and negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops contribute to the loop while negative feedback loops work in reverse.

Example, increasing global temperatures will mean more methane clathrate destabilization, releasing methane which is a greenhouse gas that degrades into Carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas). This will cause further temperature increase. But CO2 loses its potency at higher concentrations. Adding 100 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere is a big deal. The next 100 ppm, not so much. The next? Even less.

An example of a negative feedback loop would be, global temperatures increase, ice becomes unstable and melts. The influx of cold water shuts down the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic that brings warm moisture north. This causes a decrease in global temperatures. Then a positive loop would go into effect as temperatures decreased and ice formed and temperatures continued to decrease, etc, etc.

Anytime someone talks about ideas like using systems to destabilize methane in the atmosphere, or remove CO2 from the atmosphere, I am a bit leery. Not because I think they have an agenda, but because A) we are not all that efficient at what we do. It will likely just be a huge financial loss. B) the industrialized nations have a lot to lose as climates change, but other areas may see improvement. We are arbitrarily defining who gets to benefit and who doesn't when deciding we want to maintain status quo. C) Some proposals mean temporarily changing climates by putting up particulate matter to deflect more sunlight back out to space and therefore lower temperatures for a few years on Earth. That is basically like a big volcanic eruption (like Pinatubo) doing the same thing. When Pinatubo went in 1991, that was the "the year without a summer" and while I don't like the summer, some people were very negatively affected by not having one. As a result, people died in other areas of the globe because of lack of food from less crops or temporary changes in weather patterns that produced flash floods, etc. Whatever we do will alter weather patterns and that will mean some measure of adverse reactions for some places on Earth.

And saying that "the geo-engineering" is the greatest single cause is another huge overreach. The Earth has had plenty of major climate swings in the past, one that led to the loss of 96% of all marine species. It appears that CO2 is related to (and most likely the cause of) climate change. That also appears to be mostly human activity (we can look at the isotopic signature and see it is related to fossil fuel combustion). But what this guy is saying is that we are currently engaging in massive amounts of geo-engineering to offset climate change and are somehow inducing it. He has nothing to back that up. He just asserts that "we don't know what is in those chemicals" and then assumes it must be hurting.

A) we are not geo-engineering on any massive scale and most of this is purely hypothetical and/or tested in small experiments
B) if we were going to, one of the best ways would be to plant more trees.

It seems as though he is implying that "chemtrails" from planes are us releasing stuff to alter climate change (or the person making the video is). That is conspiracy theorist bullshit.

Yes, water currents and air currents are changing. They are not static. Their changes are a response to climate change in general and is not specific to anything humans are doing (climates changed before humans and therefore, currents changed too)

He goes back to the methane clathrates. He is mixing stuff up here. On one hand he seems to imply humans and geo-engineering are the biggest threats, and then says this natural reservoir is the biggest threat (and over-exaggerates how much of a threat it is). Once again, climates change and irregardless of humans, climate change would induce the destabilization of these clathrates and their release.

The Bermuda Triangle? There is no linked connection between methane or any release of gas and any of the ship wrecks in the Bermuda region. There is hardly any methane there when compared with other regions of the East Coast of the US. The reason there are so many ships lost in that region of the ocean is a result of high traffic. More opportunity for loss = more loss than areas of less traffic. We are pattern seeking animals and someone thinks the Bermuda triangle is a pattern. They are just plain wrong.

And the concept of "holes in the Ozone layer" is kind of a dead one. Less light coming in would be the result of more particulate matter in the atmosphere, but that is not the case. Light gets through just fine. Greenhouse gases trap the infrared wavelengths normally reflected back off into space from the Earth's surface.

He goes back to ice volume shrinkages. Yes, ice volume is decreasing, but what is the connection between that and geo-engineering? It is connected to climate change, but I can't find any way he is separating out the natural climate change from the geo-engineered climate change?

I only made it about half-way through because he keeps going in circles. His claims that geo-engineering are a significant source of climate change are unfounded. His assertions that certain responses are linked to geo-engineering and not natural climate change is the argument from ignorance.

I don't like the solutions proposed by geo-engineering. We need to find a new energy source, become more renewable, plant more trees, and adapt as the Earth responds to its constantly changing climate. But this guy is not just expressing some criticisms over what geo-engineering MIGHT do and might not do, he is speculating it is already causing great harm. I just think geo-engineering is unnecessary and costly.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
13-02-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Geo-Engineering
(13-02-2013 12:18 PM)bemore Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 10:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  You sort of missed my point. He completely lost credibility with his chemtrail/aerosol baloney.
Im not a big believer in Chemtrails as I have seen no actual solid proof for their existence. However my country has a vast history of not only secretly fiddling with the weather by experimenting with cloud seeding but also various methods of "germ warfare"

All for "security purposes"

So TBH it wouldnt surprise me if chemtrails were real, there just isnt any solid enough evidence to prove them... so I stay open minded on the subject.

If you could watch the Video BeardedDude I would be grateful.


No, there is absolutely no evidence for them. And consider how widespread a conspiracy this would have to be - it boggles the mind.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Geo-Engineering
...
An interesting article by Gwynne Dyer, who spent 2 years researching climate change and wrote the book ""Climate Wars".

Gwynne Dyer: Geo-engineering takes off to cool Earth's surface


"Scientists who are working on various concepts for “geo-engineering” the climate are almost comically eager to stress that they are not trying to come up with a substitute for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of manmade global warming. They are just researching backup systems that we might need if the reductions don’t happen fast enough.
..................
He is planning to test the feasibility of an “artificial volcano” that injects sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, ....
................
“It’s hard to imagine a situation except a dire emergency where this will be used, but in order to have that conversation sensibly, we need to provide some evidence-based research,” Dr. Matt Watson of Bristol University told the British Science Festival in Bradford last week. He is planning to test the feasibility of an “artificial volcano” that injects sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, so where better to try it than in the pancake-flat county of Norfolk?

Interestingly, he has the implicit blessing of the British armed forces, which take the threat of climate change very seriously. His experiment will be carried out at Sculthorpe airfield, a bomber base during the Second World War and still an active Royal Air Force facility. The goal is to find out whether non-rigid balloons (blimps) could be used to spray sulphur dioxide particles into the air and cool the planet’s surface.
..........
That is the goal of a three-year project called Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice), which is being supported by the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford. The first phase of the project involves testing a blimp that will lift a reinforced hosepipe to an altitude of one km. (one thousand yards) and spray water into the air.
.............
A blimp big enough to do that would be the size of a football stadium, and the Spice researchers estimate that it would take about twenty of them, moored over the ocean, to cool the planet by two degrees C. It would cost, they think, as little as $7 billion or as much as $75 billion dollars, but even the latter sum would look affordable to a government in a panic—the kind of panic that would occur if the planet got two degrees C (3.5 degrees F) hotter.

This is the first time that a geo-engineering idea has moved out of the lab and into the real world, and it is bound to attract some very hostile attention.

=====================================

Read whole article at: http://www.straight.com/news/gwynne-dyer...hs-surface
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zat's post
14-02-2013, 03:48 AM
RE: Geo-Engineering
Thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy explanation BeardedDude, very interesting and informative Thumbsup

You're never going to say the things you want to say.
The things you want to change will usually stay that way
The promises you break outweigh the ones you keep.
Paint upon the wall for the hundredth time.

Jesus Jones
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
14-02-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: Geo-Engineering
(14-02-2013 03:48 AM)bemore Wrote:  Thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy explanation BeardedDude, very interesting and informative Thumbsup
No problem. Like I said, this guy is mainly guilty of 2 things that discredit him. Argument from ignorance when trying to connect what he sees as Geo-engineering causing climate change from natural climate change. And 2, is just plain old ignorance when it comes to what Geo-engineering is and what stages any such project is at. He leaps into conspiracy theory territory pretty quickly.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Is civil engineering the lowest of the lowest when it comes to engineering? jacksonkulakowski4 15 980 22-06-2013 11:08 AM
Last Post: GirlyMan
Forum Jump: