They're loosing it!

[markd]

I just saw this and it's really amazing that, in a sense, they're now admitting that the sun is a problem.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513242,00.html

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

Had this been reported on April 1, I'd understand, but....

[jimcripwell]

The mind boggles.

[rustyphillips]

maybe instead they could try to get yellowstone to erupt by doing an underground nuke test nearby........

[curiousgeorge]

No, "they" are not losing it. Elvis left the building a long time ago.

[FineWino]

The scary part is that they may recognize the climate is changing (i.e., cooling), and they are going to pull this sideshow stunt and then claim they "geoengineered" the end of global warming!

[gahooduk]

they just want a excuse to explode a H bomb in the upper atmosphere

[msphar]

Please, this is not some military idea or plot. The basic idea was pitched at the meeting held in San Francisco last December of the AGU - a group of scientists. Here are some notes:

By Liz Kalaugher on December 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
This year's AGU Fall Meeting session on geoengineering had twice as many submissions as last year - proof that the field is attracting increasing serious attention. But it's still a highly controversial area. Not only are there ethical issues involved in committing future generations to maintaining the technology and the fact that it may negatively affect some regions of the globe, but also little is known about which approach is best, how effectively it will work or how much it will cost.

One potential method - introducing sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth - has already been tested to some degree by nature as a result of volcanic eruptions. Alan Robock of Rutgers University, US, outlined his estimates of the costs of injecting 1 Teragram of sulphur (in the form of hydrogen sulphide) into the lower stratosphere. Robock says hundreds of US KC-135 Stratotankers for refuelling jets are about to become obsolete and could be diverted for geoengineering use. That would cost around $70 million a year, which compares relatively favourably with the $30 billion a year he estimates for using balloons or naval rifles to inject the sulphur, or the $800 billion it could take to develop a space elevator. "Using airplanes would not be costly, especially if we use existing military ones," concluded Robock, "but there are still many reasons not to."

David Mitchell of the Desert Research Institute, on the other hand, is looking at modifying cirrus clouds to prevent them trapping so much of the longwave radiation from the surface of the Earth. Seeding the clouds with a compound such as silver iodide leads to the production of larger ice crystals that fall out of the cloud quicker. Ultimately the system could result in less cirrus cloud coverage and lower atmospheric humidity levels, enabling more longwave radiation to escape into space. Mitchell says we could introduce the seeds into the upper troposphere either at mid-latitudes and the poles, where the greenhouse effect is largest, or over the whole globe. One means to do this could be for the airline industry to dope fuel with the seeding compound or introduce it separately into jet engine exhaust fumes.

Mitchell sees the technique as potentially buying time for a transition to green technologies and stresses that it wouldn't solve ocean acidification. But it does have the advantage over sulphur injection techniques that it wouldn't cause acid rain or ozone depletion.

[nautonnier]

Apr 9, 2009 23:30:35 GMT msphar said:

Please, this is not some military idea or plot. The basic idea was pitched at the meeting held in San Francisco last December of the AGU - a group of scientists. Here are some notes:

By Liz Kalaugher on December 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
This year's AGU Fall Meeting session on geoengineering had twice as many submissions as last year - proof that the field is attracting increasing serious attention. But it's still a highly controversial area. Not only are there ethical issues involved in committing future generations to maintaining the technology and the fact that it may negatively affect some regions of the globe, but also little is known about which approach is best, how effectively it will work or how much it will cost.

One potential method - introducing sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth - has already been tested to some degree by nature as a result of volcanic eruptions. Alan Robock of Rutgers University, US, outlined his estimates of the costs of injecting 1 Teragram of sulphur (in the form of hydrogen sulphide) into the lower stratosphere. Robock says hundreds of US KC-135 Stratotankers for refuelling jets are about to become obsolete and could be diverted for geoengineering use. That would cost around $70 million a year, which compares relatively favourably with the $30 billion a year he estimates for using balloons or naval rifles to inject the sulphur, or the $800 billion it could take to develop a space elevator. "Using airplanes would not be costly, especially if we use existing military ones," concluded Robock, "but there are still many reasons not to."

David Mitchell of the Desert Research Institute, on the other hand, is looking at modifying cirrus clouds to prevent them trapping so much of the longwave radiation from the surface of the Earth. Seeding the clouds with a compound such as silver iodide leads to the production of larger ice crystals that fall out of the cloud quicker. Ultimately the system could result in less cirrus cloud coverage and lower atmospheric humidity levels, enabling more longwave radiation to escape into space. Mitchell says we could introduce the seeds into the upper troposphere either at mid-latitudes and the poles, where the greenhouse effect is largest, or over the whole globe. One means to do this could be for the airline industry to dope fuel with the seeding compound or introduce it separately into jet engine exhaust fumes.

Mitchell sees the technique as potentially buying time for a transition to green technologies and stresses that it wouldn't solve ocean acidification. But it does have the advantage over sulphur injection techniques that it wouldn't cause acid rain or ozone depletion.

"and the fact that it may negatively affect some regions of the globe"

And the countries in that randomly affected region of the globe may view the action as a direct act of war and take action accordingly. At the very least those involved both organizations and individuals would be sued in international/world courts for everything they possess.

A very dangerous strategy

[trbixler]

Such proposals while the oceans are cooling and the atmosphere is cooling only seem preposterous if you are not working on the AGW agenda. How can the EPA declare CO2 a pollutant and then our Democratic administration enact a cap and trade tax without adequate fear. This administration wants to control and ruin your life, nothing less. They have not lost it, we are losing it (freedom).

[Pooh]

Any such scheme should include a mandatory "Plan B" (with cost estimate), addressing how to "undo" the scheme in case it has disastrous consequences. (Ctrl-Z won't work.)

We had a significant solar minimum around 1810 +/-, whereupon a volcano piled on. The result was the Year Without A Summer.

A modest incentive to get it right would involve charging politicians, administrators and scientists all costs in excess of "Plan B", should it become necessary.