Editorial in the New York Times discusses Geoengineering

JFDee

Senior Member.
Clive Hamilton points at the social and ethical aspects of geoengineering proposals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/o...r-a-false-promise.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Excerpt (from the conclusion):
So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While the Pentagon “weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist, has proclaimed, “We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble climate scientist, Ronald G. Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”
Content from External Source
 
Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now.
Content from External Source
? Seemed they already started ?

On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote:


Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this?

They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing.
Content from External Source
Chemtrail nutters :)
 
Clive Hamilton points at the social and ethical aspects of geoengineering proposals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/o...r-a-false-promise.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Excerpt (from the conclusion):
So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While the Pentagon “weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist, has proclaimed, “We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble climate scientist, Ronald G. Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”
Content from External Source

On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:26:05 PM UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear all,

I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas.

You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers. edu/robock/robock_geopapers. html

Here is the op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/ 05/27/opinion/geoengineering- our-last-hope-or-a-false- promise.html?hp&pagewanted= print
 
Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now.
Content from External Source
? Seemed they already started ?

On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote:


Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this?

They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing.
Content from External Source
Chemtrail nutters :)
Why do you say they have already started?
 
Looks like the chemheads have successfully conflated geoengineering with chemtrails by simply changing the name.

I guess we can all sleep well knowing we are now not being sprayed to make us sick or to make us sterile? They've finally lasered in on a cause?
 
Looks like the chemheads have successfully conflated geoengineering with chemtrails by simply changing the name.

I guess we can all sleep well knowing we are now not being sprayed to make us sick or to make us sterile? They've finally lasered in on a cause?
that funny because Iv been saying that from the beginning ? 2 1/2 years ago .
 
Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is classified as a form of “solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term that some of its advocates have sought to reframe as “climate remediation.”
Content from External Source
Can anybody tell me why the term 'Orwellian' is used here? I can't see it myself.
 
What's that in the sky over Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969? Is that geoengineering solar radiation management way back then? What would happen to the exhaust of any aircraft flying through that "mystery stuff" that is blotting out the blue sky?

July_16_1969.jpg
 
Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is classified as a form of “solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term that some of its advocates have sought to reframe as “climate remediation.”
Content from External Source
Can anybody tell me why the term 'Orwellian' is used here? I can't see it myself.

The suggestion is that it's a deliberate phrase chosen to minimize just how crazy and dangerous the idea is.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

“The term ‘solar radiation management’ is positively Orwellian,” says *Raymond Pierre*humbert, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago. “It’s meant to give you a feeling that we really understand what we would be doing. It’s a way to increase comfort levels with this crazy idea. What we’re really talking about is hacking the planet in a case where we don’t really know what it is going to do.” In delivering the prestigious Tyndall Lecture at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting last December, he said the idea of putting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere was “barking mad.”
Content from External Source
 
I sure do . Thats the only thing I believe as far as Persistent contrails are concerned .

If you believe that persistent contrails are a form of geoengineering . . . how do you think they (contrails) accomplish the reduction of global warming, basically reducing surface temperatures and cooling of the Troposphere, etc. . . .?
 
If you believe that persistent contrails are a form of geoengineering . . . how do you think they (contrails) accomplish the reduction of global warming, basically reducing surface temperatures and cooling of the Troposphere, etc. . . .?
Same reason its cooler in my screened in enclosure ? also harder to tan ? reflect sunlight back into space .
 
What's that in the sky over Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969? Is that geoengineering solar radiation management way back then? What would happen to the exhaust of any aircraft flying through that "mystery stuff" that is blotting out the blue sky?

July_16_1969.jpg
looks quite different from what Im seeing in the sky
 
Same reason its cooler in my screened in enclosure ? also harder to tan ? reflect sunlight back into space .
Hmmmm . . . at one time I thought that as well . . . however, the science indicates persistent contrails seem to have a net warming effect . . . they tend to reflect more long wave radiation back to the surface than reflect shortwave radiation back into space . . . so persistent contrails from commercial aircraft add to global warming not decrease it . . .
 
thats not what I heard with the 9/11 study. or what the bbc said in their contrail cirrus
 
1963. I can't count the number of times I've seen chemtrial believers declare that cirrostratus such as those in this 50 year-old photograph are unnatural and caused entirely by chemtrails/geoengineering. Does it never occur to the believers that when you fly a plane in or near that layer of air that the water in the exhaust is going to condense and freeze and become part of the cloud?

whitesandsmissilerange_1963.jpg
 
thats not what I heard with the 9/11 study. or what the bbc said in their contrail cirrus

Atmospheric dynamics are very complicated but I feel confident contrails are considered by most scientists to have a net warming effect . . .

Contrails and climate [edit]

Contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation(negative radiative forcing). Global radiative forcing has been calculated from the reanalysis data, climatological models and radiative transfer codes. It is estimated to amount to 0.012 W/m2​ for 2005, with an uncertainty range of 0.005 to 0.0026 W/m2​, and with a low level of scientific understanding.[4] Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect.[5] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m2​ to 17 mW/m2​. Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.[6]

September 11, 2001 climate impact study [edit]


The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before;[7] however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.[8]
Condensation trails have been suspected of causing "regional-scale surface temperature" changes for some time.[9][10] Researcher David J. Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has published and spoken on the measurable impacts of contrails on climate change in the science journal Nature and at the American Meteorological Society's 10th Annual conference in Portland, Oregon. The effect of the change in aircraft contrail formation on the three days after the 11th was observed in surface temperature change, measured across over 4,000 reporting stations in the continental United States.[9] Travis' research documented an "anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature change".[9] The diurnal temperature range (DTR) is the difference in the day's highs and lows at any weather reporting station.[11] Travis observed a 1.8 °C (3.24 °F) departure from the two adjacent three-day periods to the 11th–14th.[9] This increase was the largest recorded in 30 years, more than "2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR".[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Content from External Source
 
Atmospheric dynamics are very complicated but I feel confident contrails are considered by most scientists to have a net warming effect . . .

Contrails and climate [edit]

Contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation(negative radiative forcing). Global radiative forcing has been calculated from the reanalysis data, climatological models and radiative transfer codes. It is estimated to amount to 0.012 W/m2​ for 2005, with an uncertainty range of 0.005 to 0.0026 W/m2​, and with a low level of scientific understanding.[4] Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect.[5] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m2​ to 17 mW/m2​. Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.[6]

September 11, 2001 climate impact study [edit]


The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before;[7] however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.[8]
Condensation trails have been suspected of causing "regional-scale surface temperature" changes for some time.[9][10] Researcher David J. Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has published and spoken on the measurable impacts of contrails on climate change in the science journal Nature and at the American Meteorological Society's 10th Annual conference in Portland, Oregon. The effect of the change in aircraft contrail formation on the three days after the 11th was observed in surface temperature change, measured across over 4,000 reporting stations in the continental United States.[9] Travis' research documented an "anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature change".[9] The diurnal temperature range (DTR) is the difference in the day's highs and lows at any weather reporting station.[11] Travis observed a 1.8 °C (3.24 °F) departure from the two adjacent three-day periods to the 11th–14th.[9] This increase was the largest recorded in 30 years, more than "2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR".[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Content from External Source
Contrails can spread into cirrus clouds that reduce sunlight during the day, thus causing a cooling effect. But contrails also trap heat during both the day and the night. It is not yet certain if the net result of these effects warms or cools the Earth, but most studies indicate that contrails have a net warming effect on our planet.
but after millions of dollars we are still clueless ? give us more taxpayer money and some day we will figure it out maybe ?
 
but after millions of dollars we are still clueless ? give us more taxpayer money and some day we will figure it out maybe ?

So do you believe Persistent Contrails are a geoengineering scheme?
 
But... you also believe global warming is a hoax. So it's a hoax, that the hoaxers themselves think is real? How do you manage to hold so many contradictory beliefs and not even question yourself?
 
I thought I answered that . Yes I believe persistent contrails are a geoengineering scheme .
Ok . . . how is it being accomplish in your opinion . . . who is calling the shots and how are they doing it . . . ?
 
But... you also believe global warming is a hoax. So it's a hoax, that the hoaxers themselves think is real? How do you manage to hold so many contradictory beliefs and not even question yourself?
Man Made Global warming is a Conspiracy to redistribute wealth via carbon taxes while the ones in power skim off the top and leave the crumbs to the poor . Carbon dioxide level are the highest in millions of years [FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]400 parts per million . It has nothing to do with deforestation or 8 billion people on the planet . The most amount of people ever in the history of the world . or the livestock to feed those people . all exhaling CO2
[/FONT]
The number is easy to estimate: breaths per minute x CO2 per breath x minutes per year

From Wiki - the breath rate is 12 to 25 per minute. Size of breath is 500 mL. Percent CO2 exhaled is 4% so CO2 per breath is approx 0.04g ( 2g/L x .04 x .5l).

CO2 Per year= 12 x 0.04 x 525600 (minutes per year) = 252kg/yr
CO2 (25 breaths) = 525 Kg/yr.

So - pick a number between 252 Kg/yr and 525Kg/yr

1000 lbs/year is a good figure of merit.[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]
Content from External Source
[/FONT]
 
Ok . . . how is it being accomplish in your opinion . . . who is calling the shots and how are they doing it . . . ?
how is it being accomplish in your opinion
I think I answered that ? Who calling the shots ? I haven't a clue since I really don't know who is calling the Shots in DC ? Build a Burgers ? :) hey thats a good Idea for a Burger Joint ?
 
I think I answered that ? Who calling the shots ? I haven't a clue since I really don't know who is calling the Shots in DC ? Build a Burgers ? :) hey thats a good Idea for a Burger Joint ?
Point me to where you answered how it is behind accomplished . . . :)
 
Same reason its cooler in my screened in enclosure ? also harder to tan ? reflect sunlight back into space .

Harder to tan? You can burn pretty badly on a hazy day at the ocean. You should know that, being from the island. :)
 
But... you also believe global warming is a hoax. So it's a hoax, that the hoaxers themselves think is real? How do you manage to hold so many contradictory beliefs and not even question yourself?

Sorry, saying 'so many' is speculation on my part - I have no idea if you hold more than one contradictory belief.

But I am confused - man-made warming is a hoax, but the high c02 levels are due to mankind's collective out-breath? Wouldn't that make it man-made?
You do know that vegetation uptakes co2 right?
Do fossil fuel-based engines emit co2 or not? Does the number of engines increase with the population?

What is the uptake of c02 by vegetation, compared to the output of engines plus everything on earth breathing out?
(Someone will have done the maths, if it's doable.)
 
And who is the wealth being re-distributed to? You think it's a trick to take money from the rich?
No they taking it from the rich countries { Western ones }and sending it to the poorer ones affected by weather or sea level rise but really they want it to fund the One World Government . IMO :)
 
Sorry, saying 'so many' is speculation on my part - I have no idea if you hold more than one contradictory belief.

But I am confused - man-made warming is a hoax, but the high c02 levels are due to mankind's collective out-breath? Wouldn't that make it man-made?
You do know that vegetation uptakes co2 right?
Do fossil fuel-based engines emit co2 or not? Does the number of engines increase with the population?

What is the uptake of c02 by vegetation, compared to the output of engines plus everything on earth breathing out?
(Someone will have done the maths, if it's doable.)
Im just saying there is nothing wrong with increased Co2 . It gets warmer we have more land not less . The trees are happy the plants are happy and put out more oxygen . Do we know what the Oxygen level is compared to the co2 ? has Oxygen increased as well ? Its a hoax because its not getting warmer
 
Back
Top