Climate engineering offers little hope of mitigation

Jul 04, 2014
Climate engineering offers little hope of mitigation

Injecting particles into the stratosphere to shade and cool the Earth will never stop climate change. This is the shocking claim made in the July issue of Nature Climate Change by an international group of prominent scientists, including Dutchmen Marten Scheffer from Wageningen University and Aart de Zeeuw from Tilburg University.

An international agreement was drawn up in 1992 to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would make it possible to limit . Despite this, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane have continued to increase and measures to limit emissions have had little effect. The CO2 concentration has now passed the limit of 400 ppm (May 2014: 401.88).

Solar radiation management

In theory, the amount of solar radiation that falls on the Earth can be limited quite simply by dispersing fine sulphate particles (aerosols) high in the atmosphere (the stratosphere). The group of scientists investigated whether applying solar radiation management would have the desired effect and, if so, whether such an international-level intervention was politically achievable.

They showed that although geo-engineering can reduce the average temperature of the Earth, it cannot halt climate change. In fact, it would result in a completely new climate with very different effects in different regions. As these effects would be negative in some areas of the world (extreme drought, for example), it is highly unlikely that political consensus would be achieved.

Risks

Furthermore, geo-engineering is not without risk. For example, there is much uncertainty about the effects on the distribution of precipitation and heat around the world. Its application to solve a regional problem (to extend the monsoon season, for example) can lead to unpredictable, new problems for other countries. Achieving political consensus is most likely if the world as a whole is faced with a major disaster, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. However, even then politicians will ask themselves – given the risks involved in geo-engineering – whether adaptation to climate change is not a better solution.

This is a blow to technocrats, acknowledge the researchers. 'In any case, geo-engineering is not going to be the breakthrough that some had expected.'

Explore further: Climate engineering can't erase climate change

More information: Climate engineering reconsidered, Scott Barrett, Timothy M. Lenton, Antony Millner, Alessandro Tavoni, Stephen Carpenter, John M. Anderies, F. Stuart Chapin III, Anne-Sophie Crépin, Gretchen Daily, Paul Ehrlich, Carl Folke, Victor Galaz, Terry Hughes, Nils Kautsky, Eric F. Lambin, Rosamond Naylor, Karine Nyborg, Stephen Polasky, Marten Scheffer, James Wilen, Anastasios Xepapadeas and Aart de Zeeuw. Nature Climate Change, July 2014. www.nature.com/nclimate/journa… ll/nclimate2278.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate engineering can't erase climate change

Jun 02, 2014

Tinkering with climate change through climate engineering isn't going to help us get around what we have to do says a new report authored by researchers at six universities, including Simon Fraser University.

Cutting carbon dioxide helps prevent drying

Mar 24, 2011

Recent climate modeling has shown that reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would give the Earth a wetter climate in the short term. New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao ...

Atmospheric aerosol climate caution

Oct 01, 2012

Carbon dioxide is not the only problem we must address if we are to understand and solve the problem of climate change. According to research published this month in the International Journal of Global Warming, we as yet ...

Recommended for you

EU sets new energy savings target at 30%

15 hours ago

After months of tough negotiations, the European Commission recommended Wednesday a new energy savings target of 30 percent so as to combat climate change and ensure self-sufficiency.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2014
Build kilometers of reflective (i.e .white or mirrored) surfaced barges and place them at the equator, where the average angle of incidence of the Sun is much higher. For every kilomter of ice that melts, replace it with a kilometer of mirrors over the equatorial ocean.

The mirrors will have similar reflective properties, because they are in a location where the angle of incidence is much higher, they will have several times the cooling effect of the same area worth of sea ice (or land ice) in the 60 degree latitude or higher region.

Sea Ice at 60 north receives only 11% of the solar constant on the shortest day, so reflecting that means little. It receives 80% of the Solar Constant on the longest day. Avg about 45%.

The equator receives 100% on it's longest day, and 92% on it's shortest day, avg 96%, meaning it is much more efficient to produce albedo-lowering activities at or near the equator, which in turn will ultimately cause more ice to re-form naturally in the poles.
verkle
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 04, 2014
This claim is not shocking. It is to be expected. Man finds himself helpless in trying to change the weather. It is what I have believed all along.
adam_russell_9615
3.1 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2014
This claim is not shocking. It is to be expected. Man finds himself helpless in trying to change the weather. It is what I have believed all along.


I dont think helpless is really correct. We could try these ideas, but we just have to finally admit that we dont know enough about how the climate really works to be sure that what we do will make a positive change.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (20) Jul 04, 2014
This claim is not shocking. It is to be expected. Man finds himself helpless in trying to change the weather. It is what I have believed all along.


Verkle: This is specifically about the impact of SO2 injection into the atmosphere. It says nothing about other approaches. There are many different scenarios that are being proposed and even combinations of those other approaches.

Is your lack of confidence based on a specific concept?

Do you have a reason to think we might not be able to mitigate the ongoing AGW?
casual
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Build kilometers of reflective (i.e .white or mirrored) surfaced barges and place them at the equator, where the average angle of incidence of the Sun is much higher. For every kilomter of ice that melts, replace it with a kilometer of mirrors over the equatorial ocean.


it would also open possibility for wide use of solar panels on that region.
grondilu
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2014
It seems to me that this is about a particular approach to geo-engineering. Showing it is inefficient or risky and thus concluding that geo-engineering in general is inefficient or risky sounds dishonest, imho.

The conclusion should not be "climate engineering offers little hope of mitigation" but rather "Stratospheric dispersion of aerosols offers little hope for climate engineering ".
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2014
"For example, there is much uncertainty about the effects on the distribution of precipitation and heat around the world. Its application to solve a regional problem (to extend the monsoon season, for example) can lead to unpredictable, new problems for other countries. Achieving political consensus is most likely if the world as a whole is faced with a major disaster, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. However, even then politicians will ask themselves – given the risks involved in geo-engineering – whether adaptation to climate change is not a better solution."

Paul Ehrlich signed up for this?
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2014
Of course, we can't fix the climate.

The good news is that it doesn't need fixing.

The bad news is that we will continue to use the climate as a political tool to effect the redistribution of resources as if we could actually do something positive about the climate.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2014
The worse news is, driven by their greed, they will proceed anyway, doing drastic if not irreversible damage to the environment, climate and economy.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2014
Build kilometers of reflective (i.e .white or mirrored) surfaced barges and place them at the equator, where the average angle of incidence of the Sun is much higher. For every kilomter of ice that melts, replace it with a kilometer of mirrors over the equatorial ocean.


You now touching the one thing I really do something about Returnering-Skippy. That is the stupidest idea I never did see. You got any idea of how many barges that is? How much stuff it takes to build that many barges? How many people it will take to be building them barges to keep up with the melting ice? Can't be done Skippy, it is just too weird this bright idea.

Cher you got to quit making these postums without putting more thinking into them or get one of the peoples there that take care of you to read over them before you send them out. Unless you like the peoples here making the fun with you because I'm starting to think Otto-Skippy is right, you on drugs or something like that.
barakn
4 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2014
The mirrors will have similar reflective properties, because they are in a location where the angle of incidence is much higher, they will have several times the cooling effect of the same area worth of sea ice (or land ice) in the 60 degree latitude or higher region. -QuantumConondrum

It appears you have forgotten that the reflectance of a material varies with the angle of incidence (measured as a deviation from perpendicular to the surface) and that the reflectance is at a minimum at small incidences, i.e. on mirror barges at the equator at solar noon. http://www.kayela...5_9.html
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2014
eflectance of a material varies with the angle of incidence

Depends upon the material.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2014
you on drugs or something like that
He said so himself/
I was clinically diagnosed with General Anxiety and Type 2 Primary depression. I'm on 150mg of wellbutrin and 0.5 mg of Clonapin... along with a blood pressure and fluid medicine, and 800mg of Neurontin for idiopathic poly-neuropathy... especially when I run out of the nerve pain medicine (Neurontin)... I was able to hoard some extra pain medicine by taking 2 times 400mg per day, instead of 3 times 400mg per day, but now it's in the progressive phase again, and worse than ever, and I'm taking 4 times 400mg per day
-All of which of course does not excuse his flooding delusional mania. Thats just selfishness.
How many people it will take to be building them barges to keep up with the melting ice?
No, robots can do all of this. But they may get swept away by the mega-hurricanes caused by cooling a large swath of equatorial ocean while warming the atmosphere above with all that reflected light.
barakn
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2014
eflectance of a material varies with the angle of incidence

Depends upon the material.

Ummm..... no.
barakn
4 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2014
I would like to challenge EWH to list a material where the reflectance does not vary with the angle of incidence.
aksdad
1 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2014
politicians will ask themselves – given the risks involved in geo-engineering – whether adaptation to climate change is not a better solution.

I wish politicians were that rational. They're still convinced--despite the scarcity of evidence--that humans are the primary cause and thus humans should (and can) reverse it. They also think the rate of warming is unprecedented, again contrary to all the evidence showing it falls within the range of past warming (and cooling) periods before humans could be conveniently blamed.

What all living organisms on earth have done for eons: adapt.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
They're still convinced--despite the scarcity of evidence--that humans are the primary cause and thus humans should (and can) reverse it.

Now the world's experts agree on precisely the opposite .... that there is near certainty in the available evidence, not to mention empirical and unarguable physics that AGW due CO2 pollution is a fact.
Only those away with Fairies, who have a psychological condition that biases the mind to blindness of that fact - think so.
You do not matter my friend.
The world, unless we count fundamentalist Islam, is not informed by unthinking minds.
If it were, we would be back where the likes of ISIS would have us.
FFS
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
ASSdad said:
They're still convinced--despite the scarcity of evidence--that humans are the primary cause and thus humans should (and can) reverse it. They also think the rate of warming is unprecedented, again contrary to all the evidence showing it falls within the range of past warming (and cooling) periods before humans could be conveniently blamed.


The "scarcity of evidence" relates only to those who deny that CO2 increases the retained heat on the Earth. This is based on simple physics as well as measurements. Please elaborate on anything you think falsifies the basis of AGW.

Please show us the evidence that the present rate of change falls within the "range of past warming (and cooling)."

You talk a lot, but you have yet to show evidence of what you espouse.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2014
Hey Ghost and Gilligan:

I am well aware of the scale of that project, and it's not at all something that could be completed in a short time. However, your alarmist Michael Mann and others figure this would take thousands of years to happen anyway, so such a project could easily be accomplished in several hundred, or a thousand years.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
No, robots can do all of this. But they may get swept away by the mega-hurricanes caused by cooling a large swath of equatorial ocean while warming the atmosphere above with all that reflected light.


1, Hurricanes are powered by warm water with cooler air above.
2, Cooling the oceans for several degrees N and S of the equator would greatly decrease the favorability of tropical wave development, particularly in the Atlantic, where you would ideally concentrate on cooling between the equator and 10N or so, since the S. Atlantic very rarely has Tropical Cyclones anyway.

3, African waves come off between 5 and 10N, and gradually drift northward,s o if you cooled the water in that region by a degree or two Celsius, it would greatly effect storm strength. Research shows a 1C change in SST can effect maximum intensity of a storm by as much as 22mph.

4, Ghost, you should know cold water kills hurricanes, warm water strengthens them. Your science is bad.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
BRDF is a function incident angle, reflectance angle and wavelength for each material.
Returners
2 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
In principle, we could also harness an enormous amount of energy from the Gulf Stream via water turbines of various design and depths, which would slightly cool and slightly slow the Gulf Stream, which could produce a significant negative feedback in terms of sea ice melt in the North Atlantic. Since the system is non-linear, it may not require an unreasonable number of structures.

The U.S. is looking towards building, potentially, some 2 million megawatt class wind turbines over the next few decades in order to produce the insane amount of energy we use, if we're seriously going to remove Coal-fired power plants from the equation.

Water power is nearly 1000 times as energy dense per unit velocity, so there is no reason not to do at least some turbines to harness the Gulf Stream. It solves two problems at once:

1, Dense power where it's needed (Miami).
2, Cool/Slow Gulf Stream thereby slightly cooling N. Atlantic.

Europeans may object, but they object to unmitigated change too...
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2014
One of the key objections I've seen to the idea of harnessing the Gulf Stream is that it may cool Europe...but they can't have it both ways. Currently, they complain about the warming, so cooling them down by 1 or 2C would just put them back where they "used to be", right?

So what's the problem? Do you like global warming, or not?

A 20% efficient water turbine can harness 800watts per square meter swept by the turbine, in only a 2 m/s current.

Wind needs a constant 18.8m/s (41mph) in order to produce the same results, which you get that virtually nowhere.

Note that power function for turbine harnessing a fluid is:

Power = Efficiency * (1/2)* Fluid Density * Area of Turbine * V^3

A primitive paddle-wheel on a tethered barge (or some rigid structure,) rigged to a generator would probably be only about 10% efficient, and could still harness 400 watts per square meter...

There are much more efficient designs though.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
Do you like global warming, or not?

Do you like ice ages?
Comparing the past climates, warming climate produced prosperity and peace while colder climates resulted in poverty and war.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
Before people object to the amount of structures needed to make a stable water turbine in the Gulf Stream, let us point out the current energy paradigm.

Talking about commercial/industrial scale:

Conventional dams:
Enormous amounts of steel and (CO2 producing) Concrete, greatly devastating local ecosystems by creating half-kilometer deep man-made lakes flooding forests and such, and increasing downstream erosion via focused water jets coming through the gates at higher than normal pressures.

Wind: (most advanced, 5-10mw turbines).
~7 meter deep concrete and steel foundations.
~100 meter high steel structure
-Composite materials blades.
-Massive generators.
-Massive cleaning and maintenance.

Solar (most energy dense on land):
-Square kilometers of PV or concentrated boiler arrays.
-Insanely intricate Heliostat electrical and computer systems to monitor constantly.
-Intricate storage and backup system requirement (usually a combination of heat capture and storage plus natural gas)
CuriousMan
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
Ultimately the sun is and will be the primary source of energy for Earth as long as there IS an Earth. Any solution that blocks sunlight is strategically wrong. And even if you lower the average temperature how does that solve the excess CO2 that is lowering the PH balance of the oceans?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
Hoover Dam was built in 4 years.
Environmental regulations today would likey extend this to 40 years.
A company has been trying to build a refinery in AZ for 30 years.
What R needs is a world wide socialist dictatorship to geo-engineer the world.
Returners
2.4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
Do you like global warming, or not?

Do you like ice ages?


Cooling the European continent and Greenland by 0.5 to 1C would allegedly put them back where they were in the mid 1800's to early 1900's, which is what the AGW believers claim they want...

No, I don't like ice ages, and I'm not a huge alarmist on the topic of GW, but I don't like pollution either.

Whether or not you believe in AGW, you have to admit it wouldn't hurt to stop as much polluting as possible anyway.

In my post just above this one, I've presented evidence/argument that a water turbine system is no more difficult than existing "clean energy", and it may actually have more than oen positive side effect.

Also, compare that to the existing Oil Platforms, and you see that we already make "megastructures" in the ocean, in deeper locations even, so the logistics of making such turbines and supporting structures is already well within our capabilities.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
solve the excess CO2 that is lowering the PH balance of the oceans?

"Marine bacteria unfazed by rising ocean acidification"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Returners
3.4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
Hoover Dam was built in 4 years.
Environmental regulations today would likey extend this to 40 years.
A company has been trying to build a refinery in AZ for 30 years.


That is a result of an unreasonable legal system. It's not just energy projects that get screwed up like that. Our entire legal system has been taken over by so many laws and regulations, which are not easily summarized, so that legal battles take decades because no one person or group "knows" the law.

This is a problem which needs fundamental change in our constitutional democracy.
Regulations are good when they are reasonable, simple, and understandable. Even a few exceptional clauses to cover exceptional situations, but when they get too complicated, and there are too many extremists whining over everything, the system doesn't work.

What R needs is a world wide socialist dictatorship to geo-engineer the world.


I'd actually prefer a qualified democracy.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
Now if you want to talk about government, here's what I'd like to see.

The founders were correct in one sense, leaders need some degree of isolation from the public (senators and Supreme Court) because individuals are usually wise and intelligent, but "people" (crowds for example,) can be unruly and make un-rational decisions, such as riots when not necessary, or knee-jerk reactions to relatively unimportant things.

Democracy:
Public vote would be as follows.

Vote value per individual:
No HS diploma/GED: 1 votes
HS diploma/GED: 1.5 vote
2 year Technical Certification, Associates, or Bachelors: 2 votes
Masters or above: 2.5 votes*

* OR multiple lower degrees or certifications normally requiring 2 or more years each. So a person with 2 Bachelors' degrees, or 2 associates, or some combination, would count as Masters for the purpose of determining vote power.

Why?

Because this helps prevent the "moronic masses" problem, and improves reliability of popular vote on complex issues.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
I am well aware of the scale of that project
No you're not. If you were you wouldn't have proposed it.

Do some of your lightening calcs Lrrkrrr. Look up the amount of ice and snow cover lost, and projected to be lost, and then figure how many sq mi of barge would be needed to replace it. We'll wait.
Ghost, you should know cold water kills hurricanes, warm water strengthens them. Your science is bad
Well if you knew how to research, and didn't think you already knew all there is to know, you would have to disagree.

"During a period of La Niña, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C... The strength of the La Niña made the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season one of the five most active since 1944"

-The results of your mega barges in terms of ecological disruption would be catastrophic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
In my post just above this one, I've presented evidence/argument that a water turbine system is no more difficult than existing "clean energy", and it may actually have more than oen positive side effect.
Indeed, comprehensive studies of projects of this magnitude are typically resolved within 2 or 3 posts in a science news forum. In your mind that is. You're a freeking lunatic.
Now if you want to talk about government, here's what I'd like to see
Who cares? You're off topic.
EnricM
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2014
Of course, we can't fix the climate.

The good news is that it doesn't need fixing.

The bad news is that we will continue to use the climate as a political tool to effect the redistribution of resources as if we could actually do something positive about the climate.


Cool! Present yourself immediately to the Nobel Committee, they have just conceded you the Noble Price of Everything.

And they also asked if you can find a cheap way of inverting gravity if you find the time, of course. Should be no problem for you, right?

And don't forget your Gun at home!!! I bet you won't have any problems open carrying in Oslo, Sweden, if they tell you something just cite the Second Amendment!
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2014
prevent the "moronic masses" problem

The smart people who wrote the Constitution solved that problem.
Only landowners could vote.
I would modify this to only taxpayers can vote, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and increase the number of Representatives to ~1000.
R's proposal is typical of the socialist who believes he knows what's best for everyone.
legal battles take decades because no one person or group "knows" the law.

These regulations are being used the the 'smart' 'liberals' who think they know what's best.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2014
Correction:
"These regulations are being used by the 'smart' 'liberals' who think they know what's best."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2014
Still waiting Lrrkrrr on your very excellent calcs on the 100s of 1000s of sq mi of disappearing frozen water and the 10s of millions of barges needed to offset it. And also waiting patiently for you to admit you didn't know that cooling equatorial ocean water causes hurricanes.

I got all day dude.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2014
Comparing the past climates, warming climate produced prosperity and peace while colder climates resulted in poverty and war
WTF??!!
@Rygtard
where did you dig this gem up? i gotta see this research... or did you just pull this out of your buttocks?
I would modify this to only taxpayers can vote, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and increase the number of Representatives to ~1000.
WOW! and you all US socialist!
... you saying only taxpayers are intelligent enough to comprehend things? I can prove that wrong with nothing but YOUR POSTS!! paying taxes has NOTHING to do with intellect, nor does it have anything to do with comprehension skills (see jk for further evidence)

WOW~ Ryg is actually the most socialist poster on this site and now she shows her true colours!
barakn
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2014
BRDF is a function incident angle, reflectance angle and wavelength for each material. -soggyring2
Then name a material (and the degree and angle of polarization and wavelength) where the reflectance at 0 degrees is higher than at, oh say 60 degrees. Extra bonus points for a material that does this over the entire range of atmosphere-filtered sunlight wavelengths and for a material that could feasibly be coated over thousands of square kilometers of surface.
Returners
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014

"During a period of La Niña, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C... The strength of the La Niña made the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season one of the five most active since 1944"

-The results of your mega barges in terms of ecological disruption would be catastrophic.


Idiot.

You are comparing a climate cycle.

Hurricanes are powered by the LOCAL/REGIONAL water temperature.

La Nina favors strong Atlantic Hurricanes because it lowers wind shear over the Atlantic Basin.

If you lower the temperature of the Atlantic surface the maximum intensity of the storms is still lowered by 22mph per 1C change.

In reality, NEUTRAL ENSO cycles are actually the most destructive for Atlantic TC development.

Moreover, the locations where the ENSO cycle actually occurrs is not where the storms develop. You'd want to ideally cool the water in the regions where the storms occur.

-22mph per -1C in the FORMATION REGION.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
I think the people in Japan and the Philippines would greatly appreciate a 1C drop in W. Pacific SST during storm season, as they wouldn't get hit by a category 4 or 5 every couple weeks during their storms season, and they'd get hit by a lot less mid and low level hurricanes.

Also, there are other ways of making reflective materials which are less expensive than barges. Like balloons with tethered materials between them.

I never said this was a magic pill, nor did I claim you could offset all of it the ice melt, but I think you can do a lot better than "nothing".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2014
Hurricanes are powered by the LOCAL/REGIONAL water temperature
Me?

"the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C... the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season one of the five most active since 1944"

-If you lower ocean surface temps over a large enough area, you INCREASE the potential for hurricanes elsewhere. Local conditions are a matter of transient weather phenomena.
La Nina favors strong Atlantic Hurricanes because it lowers wind shear over the Atlantic Basin
Oh I bet la nina causes LOTS of complex changes which lead to more hurricanes. But you dont like complexity do you?

Where are your calcs lrrkrrr? How many SQUARE MILES and millions of barges are we talking about? Dont forget the greenland ice sheet-

Oh hey, what happens when you reduce evaporation over a significant percentage of open ocean? Or phytoplankton which use photosynthesis? Is killing the oceans part of your plan?
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
ENSO is a natural cycle.

You are comparing cooling the Active Formation Zone to cooling the ENSO region of the East pacific, which are apples and oranges. One is correlated to wind shear, the other is correlated to maximum intensity.

The strength of the hurricane is limited more strongly by the SST where the storm is, than any other factor.

Your side is whining about the oceans being too hot/acidic, but then when I start talking about a scheme to try to cool some of it back to the same temperature it would have been, you now whine anyway?!

WTF does it take to please you idiots anyway?!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
Like balloons with tethered materials between them.

And when the material breaks, blows away and joins the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2014
WTF does it take to please you idiots anyway?!


Well Returnering-Skippy since I am not the real scientist-Skippy my answer is sort of like all the answers you have all day and half the night here. I'm just making an experimentation observing hypothetological guess here.

It maybe takes something you don't have to please these smarter than you Skippys. If you can't please them after making 38 postums today there is a real good chance you are not going please them by keep trying no.

What is your opinion of my theory Skippy? Meybe ol Ira is on to something important here?

The barge thing was funny though, thinking of all of Otto-Skippy's robots welding all day making barges as fast as the ice melts. And then them trying to find enough Ira-Skippys on push-boats to push them all down to where they need to be to cool down the water. Hooyeei, that was a good one. Don't you wish they would let you take down your postums longer than the three or two minutes?
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
This is the same Hollywood based AGW chimera.
Climate engineering is far, FAR AWAY in the unforeseeable future.
Presently, we cannot do ANY Climate "engineering" as we cannot change the weather that is basically driven by the Sun.
jimbo92107
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
This is easy! Make billions of solar panels that split CO2 into O2 and soot. Use the soot to make carbon nanotubes, which can be made into an infinite number of lightweight, strong bicycle frames. Sell the bicycle frames to Americans that need to lose weight. There you go!
mountain_team_guy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2014
Now if you want to talk about government, here's what I'd like to see.
Democracy:
Public vote would be as follows.
Vote value per individual:
No HS diploma/GED: 1 votes
HS diploma/GED: 1.5 vote
2 year Technical Certification, Associates, or Bachelors: 2 votes
Masters or above: 2.5 votes*

* OR multiple lower degrees or certifications normally requiring 2 or more years each. So a person with 2 Bachelors' degrees, or 2 associates, or some combination, would count as Masters for the purpose of determining vote power.

Why?

Because this helps prevent the "moronic masses" problem, and improves reliability of popular vote on complex issues.]


So by that logic, we should ordain the citizen with the highest education as dictator. I have an idea. Maybe we should reserve voting rights to tax payers and veterans. After all, they paid for it.
jscroft
3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
Only politicians can stop the Next Ice Age! Er... Global Warming! Um, I mean, Climate Change!

Anyway, shut up and pay your taxes, hater.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
You are comparing cooling the Active Formation Zone to cooling the ENSO region of the East pacific, which are apples and oranges. One is correlated to wind shear, the other is correlated to maximum intensity.
And you think that climatology is as simple as apples and oranges. The inability to recognize that it is far more complex than that, as well as all the other science disciplines you regularly bastardize, indicates an IMPARED intellect.
The strength of the hurricane is limited more strongly by the SST where the storm is, than any other factor.
And you have no idea whatsoever whether this is true or not. WANTING it to be true or BELIEVING it to be true just because it OCCURS to you, does not make it so.

The worlds leading climatologists, using the most sophisticated models based on decades of work, totally misconstrued the 2013 hurricane season. What besides total INSANITY would make YOU think that YOU could come up with something more viable in only a few posts?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
Build kilometers of reflective (i.e .white or mirrored) surfaced barges and place them at the equator, where the average angle of incidence of the Sun is much higher. For every kilomter of ice that melts, replace it with a kilometer of mirrors over the equatorial ocean
LRRKRRR. How many MILLIONS of barges do we need? How much steel are we talking about? How does this compare to the annual steel production worldwide?

JUSTIFY what you say or admit your profound IGNORANCE or SHUT the FUCK up.
jscroft
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
Ok what if we replace the steel barges with acres of mylar foil supported by cheap fishnet floats? It might still wind up being unworkable in practice, but it isn't a completely ridiculous idea, is it, Scott?

What about an over-40 internet troll subsisting on free porn and the bottomless cookie jar in his mom's basement? Now THAT's ridiculous.