Resisting Climate Hysteria

derty said:

I see you have mentioned this a few times when Flannery is mentioned and I have had a google to try and find any reference to Flannery and NO2 but didn't have any luck. Do you have a link to his proposed plan. I am curious as to what he was on about.

Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/climate-plan-could-change-sky-colour/story-e6frfkp9-1111116384553

I was incorrect about no2, he wanted to use sulphur, presumably dioxide.

Not directly related to climate change, but here is an article on flaws in research due to cognitive biases.

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/09/where-science-is-flawed/

It can apply equally to both sides of the climate debate of course, but with the rich flow of government funds present only on one side, I suspect biases may me more prevalent there.

wayneL said:

http://www.news.com.au/climate-plan-could-change-sky-colour/story-e6frfkp9-1111116384553

I was incorrect about no2, he wanted to use sulphur, presumably dioxide.

Click to expand...

Cheers wayne. The NO2 bit had me curious, considering the atmosphere is over 70% nitrogen anyway and NO2 is a very short lived molecule.

I think News Limited is giving Flannery a bit too much credit here as the use of particulate sulphate to effect global dimming was initially put forward in 1974. He has just regurgitated the idea and the media has jumped on it.

It is actually an interesting subject, and quite a valid proposal, as we see the effects of dimming by atmospheric particulates accentuated following large volcanic eruptions. The mechanism proposed is via an end product of sulphate or SO4. The initial injected product can be SO2 or H2S. The sulphate can easily be placed into the troposphere but we need to use a lot of it, it is relatively short lived at these low altitudes and you have all the associated environmental issues of acid rain e.t.c. If the sulphate can be placed into the stratosphere much less is required and it is much longer lived, you just need to get it there and in such a way that it forms particles of around 0.5 microns to effect dimming. Amongst the proposed delivery methods are military aircraft (need to get the stuff up about 20km in the tropics, so sorry chemtrail guys your standard airliner won't do this), balloons, artillery shells or huge towers (apparently carbon/epoxy composites can be used to make self supporting towers in excess of 100km tall!). There are a lot of cons especially considering that it is currently not known if the required particle size can easily be attained.

Here is a link to quite a comprehensive paper on the proposal (not Flannery's) and it's methodology :http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

There seems to be some conflict when surveys are carried out to determine the percentage of climate change scientist who believe climate change or global warming is man made. Someone is not telling the truth and uses certain surveys to suit their own ends. An investigation reveals how these surveys are used to make the "ALARMIST" look good in the eyes of the public and left wing politicians who use these surveys to substantiate their push for a carbon trading scheme which most of us now know will do little to reduce CO2 emmissions. What it will do is push up the cost of living.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

wayneL said:

I was incorrect about no2, he wanted to use sulphur, presumably dioxide.

Click to expand...

We've just spent the past 35 years trying NOT to put SO2 in the air, and now someone wants to do the opposite?

That said, I've previously head the drop in SO2 emissions from indusry and power stations (coal, fuel oil) as an explanation for the drop in global temperatures 1975 - 2000.

derty said:

It is actually an interesting subject, and quite a valid proposal, as we see the effects of dimming by atmospheric particulates accentuated following large volcanic eruptions.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the merits or otherwise on climatic grounds, I would have thought the resultant global dimming would negatively affect agriculture... and all plant growth.

With the consistant extreme cold weather patterns in the Nortern Hemisphere over the past 10 years, it is strange the IPCC have become very silent on the matter. Perhaps the link below explains it all!!!!!!!!!!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

wayneL said:

Regardless of the merits or otherwise on climatic grounds, I would have thought the resultant global dimming would negatively affect agriculture... and all plant growth.

Click to expand...

It would be a classic case of what I refer to as "tinkering".

Do one thing and it causes a problem. Then you do something else to fix that problem, which causes another problem. Then you do something to fix that one and, you guessed it, more problems take its place.

If CO2 really is a problem then, even though the cost is huge, cutting emissions would likely be a better (and cheaper) option in the long term than "tinkering" to try to address the symptoms, only to cause even more problems than we have now.

Smurf1976 said:

It would be a classic case of what I refer to as "tinkering".

Do one thing and it causes a problem. Then you do something else to fix that problem, which causes another problem. Then you do something to fix that one and, you guessed it, more problems take its place.

If CO2 really is a problem then, even though the cost is huge, cutting emissions would likely be a better (and cheaper) option in the long term than "tinkering" to try to address the symptoms, only to cause even more problems than we have now.

Click to expand...

There's an old saying, "IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT". Can't see the point in even tinkering with it. There is so much running against this Global Warming oops (climate change) it will be history in 5 years.

wayneL said:

Regardless of the merits or otherwise on climatic grounds, I would have thought the resultant global dimming would negatively affect agriculture... and all plant growth.

Click to expand...

The estimated particulates required to halt the current perceived warming was the equivalent of a Pinatubo every 4-8 years. So if you spread that event out over 4-8 years the likely effect will be quite small and would have little effect on vegetation. Pinatubo injected approx 17Mt SO2 (~8.5Tg S) (10Mt SO2 = 5Mt S = 5Tg S) into the stratosphere in one go and caused average temps in the northern hemisphere to drop around 0.6 deg.C and globally a drop of around 0.4 deg.C. That would equate to a lowering of average global temps of 0.05 to 0.1 deg.C with their proposed stratospheric injection plan.

The Pinatubo SO2 injection remained in the stratosphere for up to 3 years and I don't remember any environmental problems ensuing from the SO2 diffusing down into the troposphere during that time. We still inject 70Tg S into the troposphere from fossil fuel sources today so the proposed 1Tg S injected into the stratosphere per annum is not likely to result in any noticeable environmental effects on the ground. It does however have consequences for the ozone layer.

I'm not advocating this method, thought think it is feasible and not as hair-brained as it is made out to be. However I do agree with Smurf that why tinker with the atmosphere more than we already are? Though if push comes to shove and temperatures do rise to the point where catastrophic changes are occurring it is a weapon we have in the arsenal.

noco said:

With the consistant extreme cold weather patterns in the Nortern Hemisphere over the past 10 years, it is strange the IPCC have become very silent on the matter. Perhaps the link below explains it all!!!!!!!!!!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

Click to expand...

For me that link doesn't work. Get a screen saying "drawing error", whatever that means.
Could you summarise the content?

Julia said:

For me that link doesn't work. Get a screen saying "drawing error", whatever that means.
Could you summarise the content?

Click to expand...

Julia, if you click on OK to get rid of the "drawing error" box and then scroll down, there is information there. I haven't read it as I'm too tired tonight...

derty said:

The estimated particulates required to halt the current perceived warming was the equivalent of a Pinatubo every 4-8 years. So if you spread that event out over 4-8 years the likely effect will be quite small and would have little effect on vegetation. Pinatubo injected approx 17Mt SO2 (~8.5Tg S) (10Mt SO2 = 5Mt S = 5Tg S) into the stratosphere in one go and caused average temps in the northern hemisphere to drop around 0.6 deg.C and globally a drop of around 0.4 deg.C. That would equate to a lowering of average global temps of 0.05 to 0.1 deg.C with their proposed stratospheric injection plan.

The Pinatubo SO2 injection remained in the stratosphere for up to 3 years and I don't remember any environmental problems ensuing from the SO2 diffusing down into the troposphere during that time. We still inject 70Tg S into the troposphere from fossil fuel sources today so the proposed 1Tg S injected into the stratosphere per annum is not likely to result in any noticeable environmental effects on the ground. It does however have consequences for the ozone layer.

I'm not advocating this method, thought think it is feasible and not as hair-brained as it is made out to be. However I do agree with Smurf that why tinker with the atmosphere more than we already are? Though if push comes to shove and temperatures do rise to the point where catastrophic changes are occurring it is a weapon we have in the arsenal.

Click to expand...

Without referring back to the Flannery statement and IIRC, he said it would change the colour of the sky. That infers a far greater impact than your suggestion above.

I remember reading some research from Israel that the current levels of dimming from air pollution already affects agriculture in some places.

The reason I believe the idea is hairbrained is that climate is a chaotic system that is not able to be fully and accurately modelled, with the law of unintended consequences fully applicable. A tip of the cap to this in above posts, but there would only be one chance to get it right.

If it failed catastrophically, what then?

It's going to be tough in England for a while.

"While individual weather extreme events cannot be directly linked to larger scale climate changes, recent data analysis and modeling suggest a link between loss of sea ice and a shift to an increased impact from the Arctic on mid-latitude climate," concludes the report. "With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations."

http://news.discovery.com/earth/warmer-arctic-spells-colder-winters.html

As one who has spent a lifetime studying the origin of our universe, black holes etc., for the financially literate, otherwise ignorant of all other things, we are all "rooned" anyway.

All this claptrap about climate, is really about "Weather".

And this talk of climate changing is pure and utter horse ****.

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

As one who has spent a lifetime studying the origin of our universe, black holes etc., for the financially literate, otherwise ignorant of all other things, we are all "rooned" anyway.

All this claptrap about climate, is really about "Weather".

And this talk of climate changing is pure and utter horse ****.

gg

Click to expand...

Yes GG, its all about

Whether the Earth is close or far from the Sun.

Whether the axis of the Earth is tilted at one angle or the other.

Whether we are in the right line to be hit by Sun spots.

Whether it's going to rain, hail or snow.

Whether it's going to be hot and dry or cold and wet.

Whether we have Earth Quakes or Volcanoes.

Whether we blame GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE or CO2 EMISSIONS

It's all about whether we would rather weather the weather. Or perhaps we should keep a weather eye open for the Alarmist who might be a bit under the weather when they make their predictions whether they are right or wrong . But then again, the Alarmist might already be a bit weather beaten for being exposed to too much weather and whether the deniers are staring to get under their skin.

In New Guinea, your term of accounts would be rather like " woopwoop belong bulla ma cow".

wayneL said:

Without referring back to the Flannery statement and IIRC, he said it would change the colour of the sky. That infers a far greater impact than your suggestion above.

Click to expand...

I think Flannery is talking out the top of his hat here. Pinatubo injected approx 8 times the amount of sulphur into the stratosphere in 1991 than is proposed in the geo-engineering solution. If there was to be a change in the colour of the sky then surely it would have been very noticeable then. The sulphur does effect the scatter of the longer wavelength red light so it is likely that it will cause longer and more vibrant sunsets. But that should be the limit of it other than a probably imperceptible reddening or less-blueness in the daytime sky.

wayneL said:

I remember reading some research from Israel that the current levels of dimming from air pollution already affects agriculture in some places.

Click to expand...

From what I could find that dimming appears to be with urban centres and correlated highly with numbers of vehicles in use. This is from troposphere aerosols. While tropospheric aerosols create dimming they are less efficient at cooling as much of the dimming is due to soot which absorbs the radiation energy and heats the troposphere and light reflected by the albedo increasing particles is still available to interact with the troposphere. Whereas stratospheric sulphates reflect light directly back into space.

As mentioned before stratospheric injection plan involved a total of 1Tg S (1Mt S) per annum which is placed in comparison to the 70Tg S emitted annually into the troposphere by fossil fuel burning. You also need to add to this the amount of soot released into the troposphere and the stratospheric contribution becomes very minor in comparison.

The stratospheric sulphates also change the nature of the light reaching the surface. The direct insolation component is drastically reduced (why this method will be a total pain in the butt for terrestrial optical astronomy) and the diffuse component is drastically increased. Plants photosynthesise much more effectively in diffuse light so this effect actually increased plant production and increases the effectiveness of the terrestrial carbon sink.

wayneL said:

The reason I believe the idea is hairbrained is that climate is a chaotic system that is not able to be fully and accurately modelled, with the law of unintended consequences fully applicable. A tip of the cap to this in above posts, but there would only be one chance to get it right.

If it failed catastrophically, what then?

Click to expand...

If someone was to attempt to do this now it would be completely hair-brained - but as I said before, if things go pear shaped it is a solution, that due to direct observation of injected volcanic sulphate aerosols, we know works and works quickly.

The main negatives appear to be the damaging of the ozone layer and totally disrupting terrestrial optical astronomy. The effect of the initial amount of added sulphur to the environment and disruption to vegetation appear to be insignificant and in the case of agriculture it looks to be a positive. It is untried and actually physically placing the sulphates into the stratosphere of a suitable size may prove to be difficult and may actually require much more sulphur to be used to achieve an effective albedo reduction than has been proposed so far.

Though as for potentially being catastrophic I can't see how it could be. Especially in the early stages. The lifespan of the sulphate particles in the stratosphere of 1-3 years means that if we do see deleterious effects it can be stopped or wound back and the system quickly goes back to it's previous state.

The main issue for me is the long term implications as alluded to by Smurf. If we eventually go down this route and continue to maintain the rate of increase of CO2 emissions then we will eventually get to a point (possibly not for centuries) where the amount of sulphur required to offset the rising warming effect will cause problems greater than they are remedying. Though by this stage we might be locked in as stopping the sulphur injection would rapidly remove any cooling effect with the earth rebounding to the warmer equilibrium. It would all make a good science fiction novel.

noco said:

With the consistant extreme cold weather patterns in the Nortern Hemisphere over the past 10 years, it is strange the IPCC have become very silent on the matter. Perhaps the link below explains it all!!!!!!!!!!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

Click to expand...

Oh dear... an institute who's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, who was also listed as the executive director of the Center for Science and Public Policy in the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation till 2006 who where actually funded by Exxon Mobil...

Here is an funny article on Dennis from a blog http://davec.org/tag/dennis-ambler/

Incidentally when it comes to Northern Hemisphere temps I suggest you look at the NOAA Website for what they actually are, along with the actual amount of snow that has fallen in the northern hemisphere year on year.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php

There is paper called "If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?" by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Ken Lo. On the Arctic Oscillation. It (might) help (you) understand.

12 months since I bothered to post on any of these threads, with comments like the one quoted above is it really any wonder You know I don't actually care what you believe, but when I see eleven exclamation points it makes me laugh out loud.

Y'all play nice now.

So_Cynical said:

So we can reduce green house gases and built new coal fired power stations....interesting, tell me more.

Click to expand...

Please don't just cut bits out of context like that.
But no, I don't accept that we need government to force cuts in CO2 emission at short notice. I have said (this is the context bit), that given there is a ban on nuclear, and that coal is (since markets automatically favour the most efficient energy source) the main energy source, cutting coal burn rates is the same thing as strangling the economy.
If renewable sources offered the energy-output-rate-to-cost ratio anywhere near coal, it would be being used competitively with coal anyway. If you strangle something as fundamental as a nations energy source, you ARE going to strangle its economic activity and hence peoples quality of life. That is to say, if you ban new stations, people will suffer for the sake of some guy getting to enjoy some moral posturing. And I say to hell with that.
The correct political stance is 'we legalize the use of nuclear power, subject to regional approvals'. This then allows the higher-energy-density nuclear to naturally compete with coal, which is technologically inferior, with the long-term result of nuclear displacing coal from the market (reducing, as a side-effect, national CO2 outputs).

Now some here have said that nuclear cannot out compete coal. However, we do not know this at all, since nuclear is not legal. It is all very well to say X can't beat Y, but they have to have a match to prove it, or it is mere empty conjecture. Technology has a knack of causing lowering prices, and given that the physics of fission is that supplies higher energy outputs than combustion - nuclear WILL displace coal from the market as generation capital becomes cheaper.

Australia may be the lucky country, but politicians can destroy anything if they put their minds to it. The climate brigade are doing just that.

Vizion said:

....who where actually funded by Exxon Mobil...

Click to expand...

All research is funded by somebody.

While research funded by oil companies might be suspected of bias in one direction, there is evidence that research funded by governmnet has bias in the other direction. It seems funding is only available if you want to show that climate change is occurring.

If you have a hypothesis that climate change is predominantly natural and want funding, you won't get it from government.

So let's put the childish "big oil" accusations in the toilet where they belong. It's playing the man not the ball. Either the research stands up on scientific grounds or it doesn't.