New World: Climate Change

[manxman]

No Pixel this is a soothsayers thread, a self-confessed cutting edge visionary at work m8.

You cannot expose tyger-worldscience, its cutting edge, like the 5 or 6 posts about deep ocean heating and expansion, and the professor who really knows his science, a true expert, because you can only rely on science carried out by pro's like him.

So he spends a whole night crooning about said prof, what a great communicator etc etc, really gets his message over etc etc.
The 5/6 postings were sickly-sweet with 'tyger-science'.

Even tho tyger had been linked to nasa/jpl in the other thread and was shown categorically theres been zero deep ocean heat absorption or expansion.

Instead he spends a whole day in fantasy land, point out he is just posting discredited sceptical science bs, and well thats bullying him son.


Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Argo 10 yrs and counting, since they started thorough deep ocean measurements, still no rise in temp.
Global Change Analysis



Guy is not well pixel, leave him to wallow in his morass of self-inflicted guilt.
He is so far gone, you have to either pity him, or realise he is just baiting.

Either way his pattern is set

Post bs
Get called on it
Insult the caller 2/3 times underhandedly.
Purposefully miss-represent the other posters intent, when insulted back.
Give the respondent a hate title.
Hate on them there '''deniers''''.
Cry wolf about being bullied, to garner support, whilst hating on them.
Eliminate dissent in anyway.
Pm mods/gene furiously crying about cyber bullying.

Rinse wash repeat.
And cry me a river.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Howdy - this is a polite reminder for everyone to stay on arguments, let's try and continue to argue the points, not the people.

I'll never understand why in a paranormal - themed forum, the most contentious thread is about whether we are causing the planet to heat up.

ufos, ghosts, bigfoot anyone?

 

[manxman]

Righto Goggs, lets discuss Hoaglands cutting edge science, Hoagland and Mann are the same creature, how do you take either seriously.

How can you not attack their credibility when either of their '''work''' is being put out there as cutting edge.

The whole concept of runaway AGW due to co2 emissions was Manns creation, he is both Mr Ice Age [70s/80s]
Mr runaway AGW, when the world didnt freeze but got warmer 85 to 97.
with no warming since he is now Mr catastrophic climate change, a mann on a misison, whatever the weather..

Its about what is real and what is illusion, and runaway AGW is the biggest sham since religion.


But mainly its about the human 'condition'.
Watching his decent into lunacy is pretty funny, what he will believe without quetion from those he sees as authority figures with little or no verification is frustrating, although it provides many laugh out loud momments, he gets away with it because he just keeps going in a circle jerk of self-fulfilling nonsense.

Rinse wash repeat
Cry me a river, oh the bullies.

You wont find funnier stuff on the net than someone acting the cats whiskers, crooning about 'the science' or the expertise etc, over and over, utter and total admiration, only to have their bubble burst with 2 short mocking sentences, and a link to their own authorities websites categorically falsifying their experts outdated theory, and falsifying the false science his theories were based on.

Then watch them drown the topic in an avalanche of postings of even more people making old statements about the same topic, as if volume of ignorance beats actual fact, deep ocean warming and expansion is just one example of the lengths and tosh the guy will go to.

 

[manxman]

Plus our cutting edge guru, isnt as cutting edge as he thinks, the co2 isnt going into the deep oceans, the latest cutting edge research has the carbon going into the 'newly' discovered algae mat, that covers the earth, luckily enough it can absorb 7 times more co2 than the top soil, not all good news tho.

Its nearly saturated, and so temperatures globally are going to rise rapidly, some time in the next 20yrs, just depends how long the algae can hold out for.

My prayers are with the algae, God bless them.



Anyone who can watch this doco from channel four dispatches, an institution of british documentary making, theyve broken many huge scandals over the last 3 decades.

This doco was aired just before the 4th assessment, and having just watched it again 99% still holds true today, the reason being science.

Now the doco plus ALL the proven climate change science scandals, how anyone remains anything other than skeptical is beyond reason to me.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) - Top Documentary Films

That doco will turn a believers stomach, it falsify's so many pillars of their belief.
It is ofcourse solely comprsing expert opinion and real science by IPCC scientists alone as is dispatches style, the science and the IPCC scientists tell the story..

No mocking, no fancy claims, just IPCC scientists discussing climate change, or rather the lack of , and why.
Also their insight into how the IPCC system works.

Put simply its an expos'e of corruption of climate science by in-house whistle blowers who just happen to be multi-award winning scientists, some world renowned, as said already typical dispatches style..

 

[pixelsmith]

Plus our cutting edge guru, isnt as cutting edge as he thinks, the co2 isnt going into the oceans, the latest cutting edge research has the carbon going into the 'newly' discovered algae mat, that covers the earth, luckily enough it can absorb 7 times more co2 than the top soil, not all good news tho.

Its nearly saturated, and so temperatures globally are going to rise rapidly, some time in the next 20yrs, just depends how long the algae can hold out for.

My prayers are with the algae, God bless them.



Anyone who can watch this doco from channel four dispatches, an institution of british documentary making, theyve broken many huge scandals over the last 3 decades.

This doco was aired just before the 4th assessment, and having just watched it again 99% still holds true today, the reason being science.

Now the doco plus ALL the proven climate change science scandals, how anyone remains anything other than skeptical is beyond reason to me.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) - Top Documentary Films

It's a belief system. It creates a warm fuzzy feeling in some people in that they feel they are "saving the planet", or the polar bears etc. What they don't realize is that their religion is actually harming people and the planet while putting tons of green into the pockets of their new gods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

Aye lets all go green, welcome to green energy, if you live long enough.

Beneath are the consequences now of green taxes.

Everybody who had to spend more than 10 per cent of their income to heat their homes properly, some 4.5m English households were in fuel poverty in 2012, a huge increase on the 3.2m homes in fuel poverty in 2011.
Charities slammed the Government for its lack of real action in tackling the scandal of fuel poverty leaving many people being forced to choose between heating or eating because of rising energy bills each winter.

That in turn is a major factor in the 31,000 "excess winter deaths" in England and Wales, said Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director for Age UK.

She pointed out that the health implications of living in cold homes are well established, ranging from cardiovascular and respiratory disease to depression, at an estimated cost to the NHS of £1.36bn a year.


Still no harm done, save's abit of co2 eh.



Now thats with retail energy prices with only 10% green taxes added, still no harm done, what do a few thousand old people and children matter, you know the most vulnerable to cold, still no harm done, saves adding more co2 than the 12 parts in a million of co2 we are currently adding to the atmosphere.


These are uk government forcast future percentage of retail energy prices that green taxes will make up.

Impact of levies on Retail Prices (% change from baseline)



Electricity

17%

33%

41%


On that picture households will be paying 41% more by 2030 for their electricity bills as a result of green policies than the retail price is expected to be.

It also means everything produced in the uk, will cost more to produce, without a shadow of doubt green taxes are going to account for around 15% of the average income in stealth taxes, and when inflation from passed on cost is distributed thru the economy.



Still no harm done better safe than sorry eh.


I Bet you young fellas out there are over joyed knowing you are going to work 7hrs at an average wage job a week for nothing, or 15% of your working life going to green taxes.

 

[Burnt State]

While Goggs may try to bring this back to civility it's just impossible. Arguing people appears to be the net effect of the climate discussion instead of talking about how to promote good planetary stewardship, or to debate data.

The Swindle doc is a good example. The language used to describe how impaired warmists are vs. the apparently very accurate and dispassionate critique of AGW is its own paradox. Criticism of this movie highlighting the exact same arguments as presented here on the Paracast forums prove nothing. They also inaccurately use data from IPCC and NASA, make claims from questionable sources, use handpicked cherries of data, use scientist's words out of context etc. all the same stuff as here. That movie has been hacked apart and it obviously has its supporters as well.
The Great Global Warming Swindle - RationalWiki
In fact the best thing I read about the climate change debate is from the one scientist that felt her words were used out of context to make a point contrary to her own belief in global warming. She felt that positions on both ends of the debate are extremist and not tenable.

All discussion about global warming and climate change will end with people taking apart each other's data, and then the ideologies that support this data. These are conflicting political positions. While I can appreciate that yes, some people might be manipulating scientifically debated data for grant funding, like in any field of research, i don't understand the incredible degree of anger and insult that is associated with the debate. It boggles the brain and appears to have its own ideology attached to it.

Does it make sense to switch to renewable energies or to mock things like solar energy as this movie does? I think that inside there we can see an indirect support for oil based economies. I don't see the benefit of polluting energies that are non-renewable. While that oil may be creating a carbon that is absorbable, or that the planet can negotiate, I'm not sure it's worth rolling the dice to determine just where are those edges and invisible tipping points?

I find the mocking of the environmental position to be at the heart of the anti-AGW position. Those people say that CO2 is at the heart of a warmist's agenda. Both cry foul. Both cry rivers. But the reason for those tears comes from two vey different sources of injustice. One of them I find to be a little too self-centered & about status quo; while, the other one is more outward looking and progressive. The anti-AGW people say that warmists are the real profiteers though I've yet to see anyone provide an accurate comparison between the profits of the warmists, and carbon tax costs up against the cost of environmental damage and non-renewable materials industry profits. Who actually is more evil - the Koch brothers or Al Gore?

If the AGW debate is to be taken seriously then extract the emotion, become scientists and debate hard core data instead of denying each other's date accuracy. Until you can agree on what the data actually is then all you will ever have is insult. This forum mirrors that public, global debate.

 

[manxman]

Rabbit Rabbit Rabbit.

The documentary is by a multi award winning team, this team have made several programmes blowing the lid of some the biggest scandals in the uk.

You didnt watch the doco, you went straight to skeptical science, same as the other guru does when faced with an unpalable truth/s.

Rational wiki, that page is authored by sceptical science and other activists, you are utterly bereft of shame, count how many times the word denialist is used, it cannot be less than 100 times, what on earth is rational about that.

But seeing how you couldnt be arsed to watch it, and would rather google some sickeningly biased activist garbage, you are now going to have to defend your position, as we segment the doco and confirm or refute the IPCC scientists involved.

The ride can be as gentle or rough as you like, however you will be both corrected and mocked if you carry on with the total disregard to intellectual integrity you have just demonstrated in your post above, i expect atleast some integrity from you, i dont know why, but i just do.



So this is the first of your claims about the doco.

They also inaccurately use data from IPCC and NASA, make claims from questionable sources, use handpicked cherries of data, use scientist's words out of context etc.

Please substantiate your claims with timings so i can see YOUR examples, or just admit they are not your claims, but cook et al's..

 

[pixelsmith]

Rabbit Rabbit Rabbit.

The documentary is by a multi award winning team, this team have made several programmes blowing the lid of some the biggest scandals in the uk.

You didnt watch the doco, you went straight to skeptical science, same as the other guru does when faced with an unpalable truth/s.

Rational wiki, that page is authored by sceptical science and other activists, you are utterly bereft of shame, count how many times the word denialist is used, it cannot be less than 100 times, what on earth is rational about that.

But seeing how you couldnt be arsed to watch it, and would rather google some sickeningly biased activist garbage, you are now going to have to defend your position, as we segment the doco and confirm or refute the IPCC scientists involved.

The ride can be as gentle or rough as you like, however you will be both corrected and mocked if you carry on with the total disregard to intellectual integrity you have just demonstrated in your post above, i expect atleast some integrity from you, i dont know why, but i just do.

These guys will never debate or go over data point by point because they know they will be shown to be scientifically misinformed. Much like Al Gore.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

Aye intellectual integrity was one thing i thought i personally could rely on with burnt, we used to get on well in private, that reply using rational wiki was pretty low, cook et al v dispatches a multiple national award winning team, and the rest of his stating of the obvious plus the usual anti industrialist nonsense etc, without even watching it, tey are IPCC scientists, thats how they get paid, some world renowned in their field of expertise.

= Well known denialist
see reference [skeptical science]

rational wiki

The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) - Top Documentary Films

Whistle-blowers are insiders, that's the reason the title is great-global-warming-swindle

Burnt obviously thought we were in need of ANOTHER of his philosophy lessons hence the rabbit rabbit rabbit, look at the post, a few false claims about a doco he couldnt of had time to watch, and will now nor ever be able to back up, and then a burnt state philosophy fest.

I look forward to seeing..... [ The Swindle doc is a good example ]..... what it is a good example of, if he tries to defend his baseless claim/s, means he will have to watch, if he is honest after watching it, he will realise why he should be ashamed of that cook et al critique his synopses was from.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

While Goggs may try to bring this back to civility it's just impossible. Arguing people appears to be the net effect of the climate discussion instead of talking about how to promote good planetary stewardship, or to debate data.

The Swindle doc is a good example. The language used to describe how impaired warmists are vs. the apparently very accurate and dispassionate critique of AGW is its own paradox. Criticism of this movie highlighting the exact same arguments as presented here on the Paracast forums prove nothing. They also inaccurately use data from IPCC and NASA, make claims from questionable sources, use handpicked cherries of data, use scientist's words out of context etc. all the same stuff as here. That movie has been hacked apart and it obviously has its supporters as well.
The Great Global Warming Swindle - RationalWiki
In fact the best thing I read about the climate change debate is from the one scientist that felt her words were used out of context to make a point contrary to her own belief in global warming. She felt that positions on both ends of the debate are extremist and not tenable.

All discussion about global warming and climate change will end with people taking apart each other's data, and then the ideologies that support this data. These are conflicting political positions. While I can appreciate that yes, some people might be manipulating scientifically debated data for grant funding, like in any field of research, i don't understand the incredible degree of anger and insult that is associated with the debate. It boggles the brain and appears to have its own ideology attached to it.

Does it make sense to switch to renewable energies or to mock things like solar energy as this movie does? I think that inside there we can see an indirect support for oil based economies. I don't see the benefit of polluting energies that are non-renewable. While that oil may be creating a carbon that is absorbable, or that the planet can negotiate, I'm not sure it's worth rolling the dice to determine just where are those edges and invisible tipping points?

I find the mocking of the environmental position to be at the heart of the anti-AGW position. Those people say that CO2 is at the heart of a warmist's agenda. Both cry foul. Both cry rivers. But the reason for those tears comes from two vey different sources of injustice. One of them I find to be a little too self-centered & about status quo; while, the other one is more outward looking and progressive. The anti-AGW people say that warmists are the real profiteers though I've yet to see anyone provide an accurate comparison between the profits of the warmists, and carbon tax costs up against the cost of environmental damage and non-renewable materials industry profits. Who actually is more evil - the Koch brothers or Al Gore?

If the AGW debate is to be taken seriously then extract the emotion, become scientists and debate hard core data instead of denying each other's date accuracy. Until you can agree on what the data actually is then all you will ever have is insult. This forum mirrors that public, global debate.

I would like to know who funded the film. Follow the money trail. Was it a Koch Brothers front-organization? The only powerful interests that refute global warming/weather change seem to be oil and other traditional energy corporations and their useful idiots who watch FOX NEWS exclusively.

Frankly, I guess I am a nihilist.

In my opinion, humanity never changes behavior until they have no other choice. So conditions will just continue to deteriorate until predatory capitalism cannot continue under the dismal environmental conditions at that time. Then the current elites opposing climate science will suddenly embrace the science and want to take over the alternative fuel industries, keeping their strangle hold on the planet.

Therefore, since nothing I or anyone else could say on this forum will change the course of humanity in the least way, I will excuse myself from the bitter argument.

By the way, just as AIDS had to impact millions of Americans before the federal government would even acknowledge its existence (Ronald Reagan managed to ignore it through his entire 8 years as President when it could have been nipped in the bud), we will probably have to see wholesale destruction of the wheat belt and the fruit and vegetable belts before anyone will do anything beyond the trivial cosmetics of sorting out your recycled garbage from your other garbage.

 

[manxman]

America isnt the world m8, its just a broke country occupying a small part of it.
American driven co2 disaster politix didnt mean jack to the remaining 7 billion of us, until yall started trying to force your scaremongering politics on us.

Uncle Sam to save the world, just like independence day, that black guy that punched the alien can play obarmy, as he turns america into the worlds carbon scrubbing capital, on more borrowed money, saving humanity, whilst taxing us all for the air we breath, god bless america and her pseudo science.

 

[Burnt State]

Manxman, you miss the point I'm making. My source critiques your source which critiques my source and so it goes. I ask repeated questions that Pixel never answers. You're asking questions I'm not going to bother to answer. You'll discredit my sources and I'll go after Pixel's. This is the dog that chases its own tail. Truth be told there's wide ranging criticism of the movie. It is a political position and not a revelatory documentary. I woukdn't take my choice of links as anything too personal, really. But the movie is a piece of rhetoric, as Al Gore uses rhetoric in his own cinema. The difference between the two is that one is a call to environmental action, to activate the populous and the other is a call to do nothing.

There's no point in pretending to debate data point by point when it's all secondary sources, and tertiary manipulations of the data. Besides, no one here is a scientist, just ideologues, believers & conspiracists. You can call rabbit if you like though I prefer the roadrunner, or talking about whether it not UFO's are sentient life forms.

 

[manxman]

I dont care about your gripe with pixel nor about your philosophies, im not saying that to be rude, its about you never staying on point, you made baseless intellectually bereft claims,.
Now you dont want to discuss it because you admit they were baseless, and they were made blind, have you really not got the stomach to watch real bought and payed for IPCC scientists discussing the corruption of climate science and along with the whole funding and ipcc peer review process ?.
Why do you think cook et al portray so much vitriol in that link your synopsis and false claims come from.

I take it now that you also withdraw the false innuendo/claim of the scientists being in the pay of big whatever ?,

The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) - Top Documentary Films

 

[pixelsmith]

I will answer any question you ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

I dont care about your gripe with pixel nor about your philosophies, im not saying that to be rude, its about you never staying on point, you made baseless intellectually bereft claims, now you dont want to discuss it because you admit they were baseless, have you really not got the stomach to watch real bought and payed for IPCC scientists discussing the corruption of climate science and along with the whole funding and ipcc peer review process ?.
Why do you think cook et al portray so much vitriol in that link your synopsis and false claims come from.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) - Top Documentary Films

If it makes you feel any better in the discussion to see me as intellectually bereft suit yourself. I'm saying there's nothing to debate when each sees the other as a conspiracist. I've put time in to the research and the discussion and seen very little by way of productivity coming out of the discussion. I've tried repeatedly to find dialogue and get no response. In short, it's a large waste of time. Dancing on the stage of god is a trck played to keep people down, distracted and dumb.

The only benefit from this talk is that I've learned enough earth sciences to know that my knowledge is limited at being able to accurately say what's going on without question. I've found no real interest anymore in the discussion outside of the philosophical and sociological effects I see at work here. Planetary science is far too complex, and from what I can tell the smart thing to do is to be environmental and wary of capitalist sponsored rhetoric, which usually means more taxes and higher energy costs. That's reality - deal.

 

[manxman]

If it makes you feel any better in the discussion to see me as intellectually bereft suit yourself. I'm saying there's nothing to debate when each sees the other as a conspiracist. . In short, it's a large waste of time. Dancing on the stage of god is a trck played to keepeople down, distracted and dumb.

. I've found no real interest anymore in the discussion outside of the philosophical and sociological effects I see at work here. Planetary science is far too complex, and from what I can tell the smart thing to do is to be environmental and wary of capitalist sponsored rhetoric, which usually means more taxes and higher energy costs. That's reality - deal.

How much intellectual integrity is there in framing your comments and your critique as if you formed your opinion by watching the documentary, when in reality you used the most biased group of warming activists on the net opinion of the documentary.

I dont see you as a conspirorcist sorry, i see you as a guy with his heart in the right place, but your head isnt, you cannot see past the devestation of your country, you transpose that onto every aspect of climate change.

I've put time in to the research and the discussion and seen very little by way of productivity coming out of the discussion.i've tried repeatedly to find dialogue and get no response

You havent really, your just kiddin yourself, you make great speech's tho, rarely is much on point.
Anyway the doco example is a typical example.


The only benefit from this talk is that I've learned enough earth sciences to know that my knowledge is limited at being able to accurately say what's going on without question

You complicate things to much, ask yourself simple questions like.

How can mans contribution of 12 parts in a million of co2 in the atmosphere really cause all the forcast devestation.

or maybe an easier one like.

How come in all recorded temperature data, dating back 800,000 yrs or more, obtained from ice core samples, Co2 has never led warming, theres always atleast a 100yr lag, so why since the mid 90s has co2 been forcast to do what it has never done before.

Sorry i dont do philosophy.

 

[pixelsmith]

How much intellectual integrity is there in framing your comments and your critique as if you formed your opinion by watching the documentary, when in reality you used the most biased group of warming activists on the net opinion of the documentary.

I dont see you as a conspirorcist sorry, i see you as a guy with his heart in the right place, but your head isnt, you cannot see past the devestation of your country, you transpose that onto every aspect of climate change.

I've put time in to the research and the discussion and seen very little by way of productivity coming out of the discussion.i've tried repeatedly to find dialogue and get no response

You havent really, your just kiddin yourself, you make great speech's tho, rarely is much on point.
Anyway the doco example is a typical example.


The only benefit from this talk is that I've learned enough earth sciences to know that my knowledge is limited at being able to accurately say what's going on without question

You complicate things to much, ask yourself simple questions like.

How can mans contribution of 12 parts in a million of co2 in the atmosphere really cause all the forcast devestation.

or maybe an easier one like.

How come in all recorded temperature data, dating back 800,000 yrs or more, obtained from ice core samples, Co2 has never led warming, theres always atleast a 100yr lag, so why since the mid 90s has co2 been forcast to do what it has never done before.

Sorry i dont do philosophy.

He would have to engage in actual science that utilizes the scientific method. He nor others can do that or they will prove themselves wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Keeping in mind the purpose of this thread, that - if the Climate Change scenario is accurate and accepted, then what will the future look like, see the following -

MONDAY, JAN 5, 2015 01:02 PM PST
Jerry Brown’s bold climate pledge: California to go 50 percent renewable in just 15 years
“We must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatible with an abundant economy and human well-being,” said Brown - Lindsay Abrams
LINK: Jerry Brown’s bold climate pledge: California to go 50 percent renewable in just 15 years - Salon.com

TEXT: "California Gov. Jerry Brown’s unprecedented fourth term in office is going to be all about fighting climate change.

"In an inaugural address delivered Monday afternoon, the governor celebrated the “bold commitments to sustain our environment, help the neediest and build for our future” made since he first took office 40 years ago, and announced his intentions to push those reforms further, with an emphasis on environmental goals.

"Specifically — and in a move that’s already being hailed by environmental groups — Brown pledged to help California derive a full 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. That’s a big step up from the state’s already commendable mandate for utilities to purchase a third of their energy from renewables by 2020, which it’s already on track to meet. “We must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatible with an abundant economy and human well-being,” Brown said. And despite being a leader in environmental policies, he added, what California’s been able to accomplish thus far is a far cry from what the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says will be necessary to limit warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

"In addition to the new renewable energy goal, Brown said he plans to reduce the use of petroleum in cars and trucks by “up to 50 percent” and to double the energy efficiency of existing buildings, while working to make heating fuels cleaner."

 

[Tyger]

Interesting tweak - regarding Geo-Engineering.

LINK: Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geo-Engineering Scientist ‘Terrified’ of Projects He Helped Create
An excuse for weather modification programs?
LINK: Geo-Engineering Scientist ‘Terrified’ of Projects He Helped Create | Natural Society
TEXT: "Dr. Matthew Watson from Bristol University in the UK told the media recently that he’s “terrified” by many of the geoengineering projects currently in the works to thwart man-made climate change, a phenomenon being hawked as an excuse for weather modification programs by many in mainstream science as a ‘threat to humanity.’ Dr. Watson recently told Daily Mail UK online that he is: “. . . terrified, because the potential for misstep is considerable.”

"He is working on a $2.8 million weather manipulation project of the exact type that he says he is so afraid of. The project will inject sulfur particles into the Earth’s atmosphere with the stated goal of blocking the sun’s rays from reaching Earth, ostensibly to keep the earth from getting too warm. The project is called SPICE, and Dr. Watson leads the study.


Scientist 'terrified' of own tech
LINK: Scientist 'terrified' of own tech - Yahoo News UK
TEXT: "A leading scientist investigating geoengineering solutions to climate change has admitted he is "terrified" of his own technology. But Dr Matthew Watson believes if nothing can be done to turn the tide of global warming the human race may be forced to risk interfering with nature on a planetary scale.

"Dr Watson, principal investigator for the Spice project which is looking at ways of simulating the cooling effects of volcanoes, said: "Personally, this stuff terrifies me. "I'm easily terrified. I think if we ever deploy SRM (Solar Radiation Management) it will be the closest indication yet that we've failed as planetary stewards. "I believe that. It's a watershed for our relationship with the Earth and with nature. It fundamentally changes the way seven billion people are going to interact with the world, and I'm not sure the system is going to be controllable in the way we want."

"SRM envisages using water droplets or sulphur particles to reduce the amount of radiation from the Sun reaching the Earth, mimicking what happens after major volcanic eruptions. An early Spice experiment, one of the first to move geo-engineering technology out of the laboratory, was cancelled in May amid controversy over alleged conflicts of interest. The trial would have used a weather balloon to inject 150 litres of piped water into the atmosphere. Scientists are still in the process of uncovering the potential hazards of geo-engineering to counteract climate change.

"One of the biggest risks is disrupting the delicate balance of land and sea weather influences, resulting in drought and extreme rainfall in different parts of the world. Another danger specifically linked to sulphur particles is the destruction of atmospheric ozone, a vital barrier to harmful solar radiation that can trigger skin cancer and have damaging effects on plants and animals. Dr Watson, a reader in natural hazards from the University of Bristol, does not expect to see such technology deployed in this decade, but believes the day may come when it cannot be avoided. "Unless we're very wrong about climate change or quickly change our ways, at some point we're going to have to 'go outside'," he said.

"He stressed that without drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions, global warming was on course to make the world 4C hotter by 2100. "That's going to have a profound effect on the planet," he added. Dr Watson was speaking ahead of a meeting at the Royal Society in London where experts will be told the latest results from computer simulations of the effects of geoengineering. Spice is one of three projects, together costing the taxpayer £5 million, which will be discussed.

"Other potential solutions involve spraying sea salt into low clouds to make them brighter and more reflective, capturing and burying large amounts of carbon underground, raising levels of carbon-absorbing plankton in the oceans, and using shiny materials to increase the reflectivity of deserts. The scientists agreed there could be no "quick fix" for global warming and priority should be given to reducing carbon emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change.

"Professor Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds, principal investigator for the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) project, said: "Our research shows that the devil is in the detail. Geoengineering will be much more expensive and challenging than previous estimates suggest and any benefits would be limited." The Climate Geoengineering Governance (CGG) project found that current cost estimates for the technology were unrealistic.

"It also found that the "easiest" geoengineering proposals from a technological point of view - such as SRM - were also the most difficult to govern. Conversely, those such as carbon capture that were easiest to govern presented the greatest engineering challenges. CGG investigator Professor Steve Rayner, from Oxford University, said: "Mostly it is too soon to know what any of these technology ideas would look like in practice or what would be their true cost and benefit. But it's almost certain that geoengineering will be neither a magic bullet nor Pandora's Box." "