Scientists desperate to stop or reverse climate change are dumping chemicals in the ocean and spraying saltwater in the air. What can go wrong? I discuss the short and long term.
The Wall Street Journal reports Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet
Dumping chemicals in the ocean? Spraying saltwater into clouds? Injecting reflective particles into the sky? Scientists are resorting to once unthinkable techniques to cool the planet because global efforts to check greenhouse gas emissions are failing.
These geoengineering approaches were once considered taboo by scientists and regulators who feared that tinkering with the environment could have unintended consequences, but now researchers are receiving taxpayer funds and private investments to get out of the lab and test these methods outdoors.
Tweaking the Climate
Experiments Underway
- Marine Cloud Brightening: Researchers aboard a ship off the northeastern coast of Australia near the Whitsunday Islands are spraying a briny mixture through high-pressure nozzles into the air in an attempt to brighten low-altitude clouds that form over the ocean. Scientists hope bigger, brighter clouds will reflect sunlight away from the Earth, shade the ocean surface and cool the waters around the Great Barrier Reef, where warming ocean temperatures have contributed to massive coral die-offs. The research project, known as marine cloud brightening, is led by Southern Cross University as part of the $64.55 million, or 100 million Australian dollars, Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program.
- Stardust Solutions: In Israel, a startup called Stardust Solutions has begun testing a system to disperse a cloud of tiny reflective particles about 60,000 feet in altitude, reflecting sunlight away from Earth to cool the atmosphere in a concept known as solar radiation management, or SRM.
- Dumping Lye in the Ocean: In Massachusetts, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution plan to pour 6,000 gallons of a liquid solution of sodium hydroxide, a component of lye, into the ocean 10 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard this summer. They hope the chemical base will act like a big tablet of Tums, lowering the acidity of a patch of surface water and absorbing 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, storing it safely in the ocean.
This reminds me of a half-baked idea in the 1960s we discussed in grade school.
The idea back then was to spray charcoal on the artic ice to stop global cooling.
In Need of Volcanos?
Experiments aimed at cooling the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight away from Earth are an attempt to mimic what happens when a volcano erupts. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo, an active volcano in the Philippines, spewed sulfur and ash into the upper atmosphere, lowering the Earth’s temperature by .5 degrees Celsius (. 9 degrees Fahrenheit) for an entire year.
But until a few years ago, many scientists opposed human interventions, fearing a slippery slope that would allow society to avoid making tough decisions about reducing emissions and could ultimately backfire.
Solar Climate Intervention
Yeah, let’s toss ash into the air. What can possibly go wrong? Lye in the ocean? Hey, why not?
If we get too much ash in the air and lye in the ocean, we can take it out, right?
White House Guidelines
Not to worry, President Biden has Guidelines on Solar Radiation Modification.
This Research Plan was prepared in response to a requirement in the joint explanatory statement accompanying Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, directing the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to provide a research plan for “solar and other rapid climate interventions.”
Not only do we need brighter clouds, we need more ash in the sky to darken it.
I am sure that if we can spend trillions of dollars to brighten clouds by spraying saltwater into the air while simultaneously darkening the sky, that everything will be great.
More seriously, does anyone really think these idea can possibly scale globally? At what cost?
Short and Long Term Risks
Ironically, the short term risk is that one of these plans is actually successful.
And bear in mind data will be manipulated to show success if for no other reason than to get more funding. Then we will ramp up spending to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, messing with mother nature, only to encounter the long term risk.
The long term risk is we do something really stupid like dumping charcoal on the Arctic as proposed in the 1960s to melt the ice in the arctic.
In other climate-related news ….
Why Are Solar Panels 44 Percent Cheaper in China than the US?
Please consider the question Why Are Solar Panels 44 Percent Cheaper in China than the US?
The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide
On February 6, I noted The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide
Bloomberg reports a 48% Surge in Costs Wrecks Biden’s Much-Lauded Wind-Power Plans.
Even with massive subsidies, these projects are not economical.
Biden’s Biggest Tool
White House spokesperson Michael Kikukawa said Biden has “used every available tool to advance the growing American offshore wind industry.”
Indeed!
His biggest tool is a pack of lies starting with a claim that these projects are cheaper and will pay for themselves.
The sodium hydroxide in the experiments is merely undoing a tiny amount of the huge amount of ocean acidification from our 24-7 365 days a year of vast human mediated combustion that exceeds volcanic Co2 emissions by 60 times.
“Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.link to climate.gov“.
There is no reason the sodium hydroxide used in the ocean experiment would need to be removed. Some context. Lye is an informal term associated with a history of people leaching wood ashes to yield alkaline salts. Especially from hardwoods such as oak. Calcium hydroxide is often of the highest extraction yield and the others are potassium hydroxide, and sodium hydroxide. The formulas are CaOH, KOH, and NaOH. Note that the prefixes are all alkali metals link to en.wikipedia.org that are already in the ocean. Na is the chemical term for sodium as in sodium salt in the ocean. The suffix OH is oxygen and hydrogen to yield an alkaline solution. The alkalinity of the ocean has already been reduced by due to the increase of CO2 dissolving in the ocean. Here is the equation. link to byjus.com
“The absorption of the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (primarily due to human activities) by the oceans is believed to have caused a shift in the pH of the ocean’s water by approximately -0.1. The absorbed carbon dioxide reacts with ocean water and forms H2CO3. This process is commonly referred to as ocean acidification”. link to byjus.com
The increased acidification creates a higher chemical energy gradient that requires the cellular calcium ion pump to use more energy or to work to make bone and shell in the oceans. https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/ocean-acidification–a-risky-shell-game/ We might gradually have a whole lot less food.
Most politicians do not realize the difficult biology, physics and chemistry that would be involved in reducing our burning to less than volcanoes. It is a good point to make about how politicians spew out taxpayer money in order to “do something”. The government has chosen favored “green” companies making it difficult for stock markets in green tech to function logically for investors. On the corporate side Exxon has gradually distanced from their “dont worry Be happy disinformation campaign.
There is more cost to Co2 forced climate than temperature. What is the cost of world trade suffering as port cities spend massively and possibly in vain on civil engineering to keep out rising waters. One way or another this current effluent of civilization is going to cost. Are we going to work like sailors in a storm as citizens and businesses or sit back and hope for incompetent government “to do something”? Or do nothing and suffer even higher costs and suffering?
There is no free lunch.
Correct. Well said. Just don’t expect the anti-science cult conspiracy crowd here to understand.
We have an internet era of people with no lab, fieldwork experience, or thousands of days of reading and discourse with informed colleagues putting forth internally logical arguments that are actually illogical when all of the factors that they ignore (externalize) are included. No college is not an excuse. Education does not need to be elitist. I got plenty of experience just by getting up and doing projects that attracted other professionals. There are chemistry and all sorts of other courses available online and in library textbooks.
People need to be careful with their wording. MCB is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has already been going on for over 100 years by the marine industry. people act like they understand everything without ever reading a single report on the technology. They think their concerns are superior to what the scientists have.
So, this used to be a conspiracy theory, except it’s all over the science rags and Bill Gates sponsors this stupid crap. At least RFK knows this stuff:
link to youtube.com
Spraying aluminum particles is a massive health risk
“Yeah, let’s toss ash into the air. What can possibly go wrong? Lye in the ocean? Hey, why not?”
We’ve already been tossing ash into the air (besides carbon dioxide) and assorted chemicals in the ocean. Make up your mind. Do you want industry, yes or no? How much industry do you want?
Last time I checked, you were belly-aching about lack of economic growth. What, exactly, do you think economic growth is made out of? I mean, the real sort, not the sort that are numbers on a screen while people’s lives remain exactly the same.
Instead of complaining so much, you could try showing some spine and saying how, exactly, you think the energy issue should be resolved. Lots of people, mostly engineers, have already come forward and given their proposals. Some have gone as far as providing a whole spread of proposals, and pointing out that they weren’t trying to dictate policy, they were trying to get people to do the math. (“Sustainable energy without the hot air” is an excellent book).
So pray tell, what is so hard about admitting the truth about physics and doing a positive proposal, instead of random belly-aching? I know there is always the “other team” in politics, but look, there is always the option of giving up on having two teams and having a good military junta and the army engineers dealing with the practicalities. Has to beat going cold and starving.
We’ve been actively geoengineering the earth since we figured out how to use fire.
And recently, we’ve decided to try dramatically changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yay geoengineering!
So it’s a little rich to hear talk about “this is too risky, we don’t know what will happen.” Um, we already decided to massively screw with the biosphere. Too late now.
Given that ocean seeding or atmospheric aerosol type stuff can be done by even a very small/poor country (or a restless billionaire), I predict we’ll see some of this happen even if there’s no global consensus.
fire is 100% ‘natural’, so is CO2, the latter being THE essential component of ALL life on earth….. Whether it is good or bad for the planet remains to be seen, yet geoengineering it s definitely NOT ‘natural’ !
Yep. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the average temperature on earth would be -18C. Something scientists discovered in the 1800s. And earth would be a ball of ice with very little life.
Of course, as humans we also need a little O2 in order to breathe.
And of course, almost all life on earth is carbon based. And don’t forget water. And nitrogen. Etc
There is no “one essential” component.
Well said
Geoengineering is a terrific way to get a little grant $ without actually having to accomplish anything.
There is a lot of unintentional geoengineering that humans have already undertaken (increased aerosol production, increased mid-level clouds, increased low-level humidity, significantly lowered surface albedo, urbanization (along with related heating/cooling of enclosed spaces)).
Unintended consequences of any intentional geoengineering should keep such projects from getting scaled up. A simplistic approach to manipulating a complex system is likely to lead to unintended effects.
They even have a hard time predicting the weather report never mind changing the weather and the repercussions of their stupid ideas
I wish I had the unlimited Budget to Unlimited Stupid things, You know like winning the Lottery, Probably self destruct.
OR, You could become a sitting President, so there’s that…
Problem, Reaction, Solution…. In this case, the Solution will be completion of the terraforming of Earth… wether they get the reaction they need or not, it would seem. Thank you David Keith!
These aren’t “scientists”…. they’re Scientits. Trying to prove their model by actions in the real world, instead of realizing the climate temps swing by 30-50degrees F daily. Idiots.
Anyone who ever says “climate change” as a point of discussion needs to be put in a padded cell for the rest of their lives.
We just need to blow up the sun.
Like Einstein said, the Universe and stupidity are infinite, but I am unsure of the Universe.
We better start CULLING all these morons with extra doses of m[iracle]RNA toxic spew COVIDIUS jabs… In this way we save the Planet and no one is accused of MURDER!
“Scientists desperate to stop or reverse climate change are dumping chemicals in the ocean and spraying saltwater in the air. What can go wrong? I discuss the short and long term.”
There are so many, simply stupid things about the above. Let’s just look at a few shall we, and see where these scientist are coming from…
– “Scientists desperate to stop climate change”
> So these morons want to stop the climate from changing? Somebody should let them know in a hurry, that if we do that, we all die! It changes from hot to cold to hot and back all the time 365 days a year, and has for centuries. If we were to stop that, then it would either heat up until we burn up, or freeze up until we freeze up. Pretty stupid scientist, so maybe we shouldn’t trust them? Just a thought on how to deal with the obvious incompetence.
– “Scientists desperate to reverse climate change”
> Playing God again I see… So I guess these morons finally figured out, that they can’t stop it, so damn it, they will reverse it! Somebody should let them know in a hurry, that if you can’t stop it, then how the heck do you think you can reverse it? You would have to stop it, in order to reverese it! Pretty stupid scientist, so maybe we shouldn’t trust them? Just a thought on how to deal with the obvious incompetence.
At this point I would have to say all the scientist that believe in this theory should lose their license, if they even have one. Be removed from all boards, if they are on any, which is a scary thought all by itself! Be shunned by society for their ignorance and inability to understand science at all. They are an absolute disgrace to their profession!
Stop the Climate from changing… Hahaha
Reverse the Climate in the way that it changes… Hahaha
Hey, maybe they will try to “Block Out” the Sun next? Maybe they will try to “Change” the Sunrise and Sunset schedule of the Sun? Maybe, just perhaps, if they can get the taxpayer money, they will create another Sun that they control, and then they will control the temperature forever!!! My Bad… I got wrapped up in the delusion for a split second, and was thinking maybe we could order up some rainbows on every other Sunday too…
“The idea back then was to spray charcoal on the artic ice to stop global cooling.”
Nice!! I remember Global Cooling- we would all be dead within decades from the new Ice Age.
Then there was Acid Rain.
Then there was The Ozone Hole and we would all be dead from unchecked solar radiation.
Then there was a Famine fear-fest as the population of the PRC approached 1 Billion.
Then there was Y2K.
Then there was Trump.
Then there was COVID.
Then there was Trump.
Then there was Murder Hornets.
Then there was Trump.
Then there was A Violent Insurrection!!
Then there was Trump.
Then there was Monkeypox.
Then there was Trump.
Then there was Aliens being sighted everywhere and the government semi-fessing-up.
Then there was Trump.
Every couple of decades they dust off or manufacture some existential crisis with which to stampede the herd. The Simpletons, Village Idiots and Those Desperately Seeking A Cause are always at the head of the mob. The Politicians And Other Sociopaths are always happy to use them as a tool.
Nobody, the US in particular, seemed to worry about C02 and the environmental impact in general, when Nordstream pipelines were blown up releasing a staggering 15 million tons ! of C02….But then again, ,ALL is fair in love and war of course ….
You should be grateful for it will warm Russian winters.
sure, and I d say to you, watch out for the canicule, it s pretty bad for old folks …
….and to think that some scientists, predict a cooling age ….Who s right ? The ones with Bucks ultd ? Some people seem to think that climate change is a new, anthropogenic phenomenon, so let me tell them that marine sediments are even found on the mount Everest. Scientists , probably underfunded , also say that every 12K years or so , the poles flip, causing massive floods, we have almost reached that point , earth’s magnetic fields have weakened significantly, the biblical deluge was no fantasy, it really took place ! Makes me wonder what money s gonna do about that one …
Everything we know about the 4.5 billion year climate history of the earth comes from scientific observations and discoveries. Such as marine sediments found on mountain tops.
I find it interesting that people disparage scientists, while at the same time using what those scientists discovered about past climate.
Scientists are well aware of all the natural climate cycles. They can explain all the frequent ice ages and inter-glacial periods.
They can tell you the temperatures of every planet in the solar system, including earth’s. Yet, there are morons who think they know more than scientists do because of one or two items that they have learned and then misinterpret.
In terms of ice ages and inter-glacials, the earth has been naturally cooling for the last 6000 or so years. We are on the path to an ice age with a mile of ice over New York in another 80000 years. Just like has occurred every 100000 years for millions of years. You can thank scientists for explaining this.
Scientists also know that mankind has interrupted and dramatically reversed this natural cooling cycle. In less than 200 years, the greenhouse gasses we have added to the atmosphere have completely reversed 6000 years of cooling and are quickly moving us in the opposite direction.
When climate change happens over periods of tens of thousands of years, life will adapt to those changes. When change happens over a few hundred years, it’s much more difficult to adapt.
Regarding “poles flipping”. That does NOT happen every 12k years. Though it can happen as quickly as 10k years, or take as long as 50 million years. The last time poles flipped was 780,000 years ago. Again, you take scientific info and misinterpret it to suit your narrative.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Great ! Let s geo engineer the whole fn planet then …ASAP !
That’s not what he said, and I think the whole geoengineering idea is a total crock. I am for human engineering the population of certain regions of the planet.
What fckn narrative would suit me ? YOU are the oil buyer, not me ! I merely repeated what some scientists say….YOU merely had a look at ‘the first the best’ Wikipedia answer and took it for granted ! Do some more research, I d say, there s more to fckn life than fckn oil !
What narrative suits you?
How about angry; spiteful; horribly misinformed; anti-science; anti-American; anti-Europe; whining, bitching, always complaining about the government full-time old white guy.
Did I miss anything?
I would suggest that you focus more time on your health, wealth and happiness, rather than spending your remaining days complaining online about things you know so little about and can never change anyway. What a waste of time.
And with that; time to get back to my health. Heading out for a 10 mile run. Bye.
…Lol, looks like your previous 5 or so avatars are still voting you up ? Something to be proud of at least….Apart from that, well, I am what I am and my IQ is considerable, whether you believe it or not. My running habits are none of anyone’s’ business, neither are my investments, unlike some egotistical, narcist bluffers talking about them all of the time….
I prefer when I get the down votes. And I hardly ever up or down vote anyone’s comments. Just like I can’t be bothered to vote in elections. Waste of time.
And I don’t care about your IQ. Your comments tell me everything I need to know about you.
Finally; don’t forget. You were the one who asked me what narrative would suit you. I merely answered your question.
Brain damage paired with an inferiority complex
Don’t be too hard on Brussels. He deserves some sympathy.
Warming will not seem so much of a problem after more folks become aware of runoff fertilizer and synthetic pharmaceuticals in our water supplies, microplastics in everything, ocean acidification killing off little plants that make oxygen and absorb CO2, &c, &c. Global Warming gets funding and a lot more press.
True. Lots of problems that need to be dealt with.
But we won’t. Until we simply can’t ignore the consequences any longer.
Because almost ALL of these problems require worldwide cooperation to solve. And that isn’t going to happen very often.
The people believe there is a King of Science that decrees this stuff. What science actually is is far beyond their comprehension.
Lol! Who could possibly believe that?
Idiots.
Tripling the amount of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere is also a risky experiment.
True, But it isn’t going to stop anytime soon. The world is addicted to energy. And fossil fuels provide over 80% of that energy.
The world is also addicted to tilting at windmills.
Both figuratively and literally.
but now researchers are receiving taxpayer funds and private investments
there’s the answer
Better thing for the environment: Get rid of scientists and lunatics.
Get rid of lunatics and cult conspiracy morons.
Scientists we need.
Yeah that didnt exactly come out right
Science is fit to the official narrative. Not a conspiracy theory, but a fact. “Safe and effective” wasn’t and still isn’t.
How could any sane person downvote this,
I’m not sure it is even worth responding to this article. I would probably be wasting my time, given that most of the comments seem to be from folks too stupid to even realize that global warming and climate change are real problems. As such, they are probably also unaware of the investment opportunities that exist because of this problem.
Geo-engineering is certainly NOT supported by most scientists. However, desperate times force some people to consider desperate measures. It is becoming clearer every day that we are losing the battle to prevent further global warming. So some geo-engineering experimentation is beginning. And as mentioned by Rene, any early geo-engineering attempts will be very small scale.
I agree with Mish. The worst case scenario would be early success of one or more of these experiments without understanding the longer term consequences.This could lead to widespread adoption of geo-engineering before we know the downsides, which are likely to be significant.
Sadly, as usual, it won’t be the scientists who end up making the decisions. They will dutifully perform the experiments, and summarize the results. I suspect that they will include plenty of warnings that it would be reckless to proceed too quickly. Yet, it will be know-nothing politicians who will make the decisions.
The countries that we should most worry about are those where the decisions are often made by one person; like in China and Saudi Arabia.
Of course, I have mentioned this topic several times before. It is just one plank that plays into my long term investment thesis that focuses heavily on oil and gas. Any early success in geo-engineering will encourage the use of more fossil fuels to satisfy our ever increasing need for more and more energy. Because, heck, we just “solved” the global warming problem!
Another plank in my scenario is the $5 trillion already spent in the last 2-3 decades on renewables in the failed attempt to meet all our future energy needs. This has managed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels from 82% to 81% of our total energy needs. And since we need more energy every year, our total use of fossil fuels continues to INCREASE every single year.
This has allowed know-nothings to advocate for the banning of fossil fuel exploration and production; the banning of ICE vehicles in a decade; the banning of gas appliance; etc etc. Not to mention large pensions, investment banks, and lenders reducing the flow of funds to oil and gas firms as they buy into the green agenda.
Which is why oil and gas firms have been reducing capex for almost a decade now. Which will reduce future supplies, as demand continues to grow. Which means upward pressure on oil and gas prices going forward this decade.
Got oil?
And yet, you find a reason to reply. 🙂
I had a few spare minutes.
“My ego had a few spare minutes.” There, I fixed your reply.
Thanks.
You could have just said: there is plenty of inflation, and blown-up budgets baked into the future.
Nope. That’s very different from what I am saying.
It’s a cult, and you just blasphemed.
Climate always has been a problem. People don’t live year round in Antarctica. The Southwestern U.S. has been a desert climate for millennia. The problem is that there are 8 billion people living over most of the planet. What happens to southeastern Canada and NYC when another Ice Age shows up? All those people would be forced to move south or be frozen in a glacier. The 10 million people in L.A. County are waiting on a possible 8 magnitude earthquake.
Bill Gates apparently wants a 10-15% reduction in the global population. Others want even less people, claiming the earth can’t handle more than a few billion. Climate may be the least of people’s worries.
Climate change in the global south will likely further impoverish millons forcing them to move north, where climate change will make more land available for farming. I predict they will be welcomed with open arms.
Idiots like you annoy me to no end. You’ve got to be fake.
HOW TO NEGATE A CLIMATE MORON!
link to gov.mb.ca
How Does CO2 Affect Plant Growth?The ambient level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 400 PPM. At 100 PPM of CO2 the rate of photosynthesis would be stopped completely. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted. The plant will eventually use all of the CO2 present, photosynthesis will stop and the plant will die.
The rate of photosynthesis at 350 PPM will be consistent with growing conditions outside of a controlled environment, given that ambient levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are approximately 400 PPM.
With no other limiting factors such as heat, light and nutrients the plants will photosynthesize at a rate consistent with ambient conditions (i.e. outside of the greenhouse). There may be a slight increase in photosynthetic efficiency due to the higher than ambient CO2 level, however this increase will probably be insignificant. The level of 1000 PPM CO2 is very close to the optimum level of CO2 required, given no other limiting factor, 1200 PPM, to allow a plant to photosynthesis at the maximum rate.
Dave chooses to ignore continental plate volcanism like the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps releasing unfathomably large amount of green house gasses including massive amounts of carbon with massively delayed or confusing evidence of warming or is it cooling?
I invite you to amuse yourself with the Cambridge U experts visible befuddlement trying to make sense of the climatic interactions of massive volcanic carbon and greenhouse gas releases.
It took the Siberian Traps (which left a clear coal carbon signature across the northern hemisphere) 150K -300K years of continuous massive burning of coal and magma erupting to raise the temperature(maybe).
We’ve been driving cars and generating electricity for 100 years?
Siberian Traps
The release of volcanic gases, particularly sulfur dioxide, during the formation of the traps may have contributed to climate change. An average drop in temperature of about 2 °C (3.6 °F) was recorded during this period.[10]
Watch the scientists at Cambridge talk in circles about why the Deccan carbon outpouring raised the temperature so little of not at all or even what happened?
link to cam.ac.uk
The team’s data show that CO2 outgassing from Deccan Traps magmas can explain a warming of Earth’s global temperatures by roughly 3 degrees Celsius during the early phases of Deccan volcanism, but shows that the warming had lessened by the time of the mass extinction event.
link to new.nsf.gov
Go outside and note the sun lamp heating the earth.
Notice when a cloud goes by.
Tell me what happens
All great points that I’ve made before in replies to Dave. Prior to mankind releasing Co2 into the atmosphere, atmospheric Co2 levels were on a steady decline and got close to the point where plants would begin to suffocate. No plants = no food chain.
Carbon=life
Oh stop. You must be smarter than fast bear for f*ck sakes.
CO2 levels have ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm for the last million years and plants thrived that entire time.
In the last 6000 years CO2 levels dropped from 300 ppm to 290 ppm. In another 80000 years we may naturally get back down to 170 ppm. There is no f*cking way we will get down to 100 ppm, where plants would struggle. So stop the nonsense.
Meanwhile, in the last 200 years, because of us, we have gone from 290 ppm to 420 ppm. And we will be heading higher for many decades to come. Plants are already getting more CO2 than they have in over a million years.
So just stop with this garbage about saving the plants. It’s beneath you. Let morons like fast bear own this narrative.
I’ve had this discussion with you before. The trajectory BEFORE man started putting Co2 back in the atmosphere was on a steady downard path. There’s no reason to think it would not have continued on this trajectory absent man’s interference. Even at 280 PPM, plants had a more difficult time growing. Plants take in Co2 via small pores called stomata. At 280 PPM plants had to create more stomata to take in enough Co2 than they would have at higher levels. Plants lose water through these pores so more stomata = an increase in water loss making it more difficult for plants to grow. There is plenty of documentation, by scientists, showing the earth is greening due to the higher levels of atmospheric Co2. This is a good thing.
If plants are getting more than enough Co2, according to you, why do industrial greenhouses pump in Co2 to levels of around 800 PPM? If levels are sufficient outside the greenhouse then why pump in extra Co2?
Now you’ve done it. I thought you were smarter than this.
170-300 ppm for a million years!
Plants did fine.
We are at 420 and going up. Stop wasting my time
I never said there’s anything wrong with 170-300 PPM. Why do you keep insinuating that I am? Plants can survive within those levels, but they do better at higher levels as I indicated above and evidenced by greater global plant growth.
This statment of yours from a post above says it all in my view…
“I’m not sure it is even worth responding to this article. I would probably be wasting my time, given that most of the comments seem to be from folks too stupid to even realize that global warming and climate change are real problems.”
Why bother if you know the result? Is your ego so large it needs constant stroking? I’m genuinely curious as to what compelled you to post given the quote above?
Are you lonely and seeking validation? Kinda seems like it. Hugs……
Oh boo hoo hoo. Your arguments are about as useless as possible.
I see you worship at the altar of CO2 because CO2 is good for plants. Yes, CO2 is good for plants. So what? You’re not a plant.
CO2 levels have ranged between 170 ppm and 300 ppm for the last million years. And the plants have done just fine for those million years.
We are well over 400 ppm now. So your plants don’t have to worry about not enough CO2. We are well above levels where plants have thrived for a very long time. So what’s your problem?
There is absolutely no need to worry about photosynthesis problems at 100 ppm. We couldn’t possibly get to those levels. Even if mankind completely disappeared. So your fear mongering is wasted on me.
And, of course, what good is more CO2 if the plants are denied adequate nutrients, water and sunlight. You make it sound like CO2 is their only need.
Global warming means a warmer atmosphere. Which sucks more moisture out of the ground in one region and them dumps more rain in other regions. Net result, more droughts in some areas and more floods in others. Hotter temperatures, more pests. Not necessarily the best conditions for agriculture.
Roughly 2 billion humans rely on the annual runoff of glaciers to provide the water needed for growing crops and their basic needs. As these glaciers disappear, how will these 2 billion feed themselves? More CO2 doesn’t help them.
But you can keep worshipping CO2. Moron.
So what do YOU suggest .?….Moron…. Let me tell you within the context of your immense haughty protagonism on this blog and in relation to the above and previous comments of yours on the present topic that isotopic age determination has been proven very inaccurate and that scientists know shit about the planet and its complete insignificance within a endless universe, ice caps are much younger than previously thought and even the Big Bang theory has been debunked Big time …so DO trust scientists and their ‘solutions’ for the planet….so far they ve only been destroying it …. Btw, If I were you I d go for a run more often !
I can’t believe how stupid you are. Has nothing I have said in the last four years ever penetrated that thick skull of yours?
I suggest the exact same thing I have been suggesting for the last four years on this blog. Over and over and over again.
“All any individual can do is take advantage of the situation. Because there is nothing you can do to change it.”
Man made global warming and climate change are a very real problem. And it’s a problem that’s only going to keep getting worse.
Because it is a result of our addiction to using ever more energy and ever more fossil fuels to supply that energy.
Which is why I am heavily invested in fossil fuel companies.
Get it?
“So what? You’re not a plant.”
Foolish statment since the entire food chain is dependent on plants.
An excellent response fast bear – except for the first part where I almost gave up. After you poured your heart out, you then presented facts and references which allow me to test my opinions and I appreciate that.
Insults by you and others do not test my opinions of the subject but do provide insight into the sort of person writing.
Your comment is an interesting combination.
Although I often disagree and sometimes feel you suffer episodes of idiocy there is never a time when what you contribute is not worth reading. Sometimes twice.
Thanks. I appreciate that Lisa. Now, why don’t you try contributing something more worthy? Honestly. I am being serious here. Jokes and humor are fine. But, I bet you can contribute much more than that. We can both agree to disagree, but at least we can have a more serious discussion.
Feeling pretty good. Just had my best run of the month!
I’ve been seeking a position as Jester for decades.
Considering the topics here, even more humor is warranted.
But I thank you for the suggestion.
New easy diet here and I’ve lost 19 pounds in less than 2 months.
I’m feeling pretty good too.
don t tell me you are one of his avatars too ?!
you lost me at “real problems”
That’s okay. Next time I will say it slower, just for you.
…a annoyingly long winded comment saying absolutely NOTHING !
I must be learning from you.
I appreciate your reasoned reply and simple statement of the facts regarding fossil fuel usage. Generally, I agree with you, continuing to observe how the politics, science and money play out regardless of what I would prefer.
The majority of your naysayers offer nothing but insults and/or objections but no facts or relevant opinions worthy of consideration.
I’m always looking for reasoned views which cause me to test mine. I am slowly coming to agree that fast climate change is happening. Unfortunately, the forces at work seem to to be massive and entrenched. We could be too late but I see nothing wrong with trying.
Someone mentioned the hole in the ozone. We’ll never know what could have resulted because the offending chemicals were banned and the ozone layer has repaired. Perhaps we should just let this fast climate change continue to see what happens.
Sorry guys, I have no answers, so I look out for myself while I continue looking and watching.
There are answers. Just not any good answers.
The world is addicted to energy. And more of it every year. Without more energy we cannot grow economies or improve living standards. All countries in the world want to grow their economies and living standards, while at the same time agreeing that we need to do something about global warming.
These two goals are incompatible with each other. Unless we can create enough renewable energy and nuclear to meet our ever growing needs AND to begin replacing fossil fuels. Three decades and $5 trillion spent so far has not managed to accomplish this. We are still using more fossil fuels each year.
The alternative is to accept lower standards of living and sub-zero growth. Which no one wants.
I always assume that living standards and economic growth will remain more important than successfully combatting global warming.
Probably the cheapest and most effective fix is seeding the oceans with iron-based fertilizer. Lack of iron (in the correct ionization state) is what limit diatom growth, which is a huge carbon sink. The scientist who discovered this in the 1970s calculated with a ‘ship-load’ (yes, I spelled that right) of iron fertilizer he could start a new ice age.
Of course, doing this sort of thing is playing with fire, but seeding the clouds with salt particles etc. is questionable also and certainly costs vastly more carbon than sailing a small ship around the planet once or twice.
I’m a physicist, did a bit of work on global warming (semi-related to a plasma physics project). I have to say, I think anyone who thinks that raising the amount of CO2 from 310 ppm (1950) to 410 today is not going to cause, and is starting to cause, serious problems is a profound fool. 107 degrees in Paris two summers ago? You think that’s a natural thing? In the 30 years I’ve lived in DC the summers have gotten noticeably hotter and the amount of snow has dropped to practically nothing. America feeds itself because it gets a decent amount of rain. That could easily change.
Antarctica is the driest place on earth. Generally, warmer weather means more evaporation and therefore more precipitation.
Every climate apocalypse movie or series gets this wrong. More heat means more evaporation means more rain or snow.
Yes. More rain. But maybe not where we are used to having it.
Deserts shrink and rainforests expand.
Thanks for that post. Nice to hear from a scientist. Most of the cult dummies here are anti-science.
That is the problem with this election. Ignorant mouth breathers VS senile octogenarian.
Neither is worth voting for. But that has been true most of my life. Which is why I don’t vote.
No politician is going to improve your life. Only you can improve your life.
On that Papa, I wholeheartedly agree.
“In the 30 years I’ve lived in DC the summers have gotten noticeably hotter and the amount of snow has dropped to practically nothing.”
I’ve lived in northern virginia for 21 years. I haven’t noticed any change in the summers. July and August have always been hot and humid. Winters have been hit or miss since I moved to the area. Most are mild while others aren’t. This winter has been close to average in terms of temps. The last few years the winters have been very mild mostly due to La Nina conditions in the Pacific which does not create favorable conditions for snow in DC. Most of DC’s big winter storms have occured during El Nino conditions in the pacific.
Besides, a 30 year trend that you claim is occuring is a nano blip in the geological time line. It’s meaningless.
So, according to you, DC summers have gotten warmer since the mid-nineties…but for decades prior to that, many scientists said the earth was cooling rapidly and predicted another ice age….
I live 15 km from the Eiffel Tower and last summer when they said it was 107 in Paris, it was only 103 at my place. If you have the freedom to measure the temperature wherever you want, it is easy to find the temperature you want in a city like Paris and then report it as if the whole area is that temperature. Too much of that goes on.
I live in Florida and have experienced multitudes of hurricanes. For the last couple of years I haven’t worried. Why? Explosions of sargassum. The weed grows to cover millions of square miles in the mid-Atlantic. It blocks the sun from the water and absorbs carbon dioxide from the air above it. The water beneath and around it is dramatically cooler and hurricanes don’t have enough energy to become the big Cat 5’s that do the real damage. Similar concept to putting iron in the water.
You and Dave are propagandists!
How do we know this?
Because neither will answer the questions I posted above.
Why do plant grow better with more Co2?
What Co2 thresholds do plants thrive and die at?
At 300PPM they stop growing!
They thrive at 1200PPM.
Why do they thrive at 1000 -1600 PPM Co2?
IDIOTS
Why can’t anyone think anymore?
This would be a good topic for Mish to cover?
Are you being paid to distort reality brainwashed or just plain stupid?
link to extension.okstate.edu
Answer the questions?
link to extension.okstate.edu
“At 300 ppm plants stop growing”.
Lol. What a load of crap. CO2 levels have ranged between 170 ppm and 300 ppm for the last million years. All current life on earth has developed within that CO2 range, including all plants. I guess they weren’t listening to you that they should have all died off!
Moron.
Oh dear, sounds like you are a plant (pun anyone?).
I fail to see how the response of plants to CO2 levels pertains to the complex issue of fast climate change. Please explain where and how it is relevant.
Perhaps the last living person will say “Well, at least the plants are thriving.” as the level passes 1600.
Again, cut the insults and let’s have an adult discussion.
While we’re at it, we won’t fix the topic here. I’d like to make a useable contribution but I’m firmly on the fence, hoping to get knocked off.
MI6, no question, it is going to ruin ice fishing for a lot of folks.
We have had global warming since the end of the ice age. People need to get a grip
These are small scale experiments for the purpose of measuring effectiveness as well as quantifying the drawbacks.
I’ve always believed the climate problem would be solved with technology. My hope was for a space-based solution using ultra-thin lightweight shades adding up to 100’s of square miles. Keeping things on earth probably makes a lot of sense especially if its as simple as spraying sea water into the air.
I’m all for these experiments because I look back at some of history’s big projects like the pyramids, the great wall, the panama canal, and I think it would be awesome to live in a time where we added another giant engineering marvel.
Maybe an aqueduct from the great lakes to the western states. The economic benefits would be astronomical.
What climate change crisis?
I agree. I actually got excited when I read this in the WSJ this morning. Advanced tech is the only way we are going to remedy this issue. There is no way our economies are going to meet our carbon goals. And any way its already too late. The last time we had current levels of carbon in atmosphere sea levels were significantly higher. I pray that tech can bail us out again.
Right on.
Like the esteemed US Congressfolks, you apparently have zero education in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Maf is hard.
Millions of gallons of lye to clean the planet. It makes sense. My granny aprove it. Politicians may be useful scrubbing strong with a scourer all the country.
link to youtu.be
5 minute video about an oceanic habitat restoration process that was so successful their offices got raided because of objections by greens.
It provides 100x financial ROI by increasing fish stocks. It also happens to capture some CO2 and naturally brighten some clouds.
Simpsons did it!!!
Season 6 , Episode 25, 2F16
(hat tip to South Park)
Although i think the propensity for stupid ideas is nearly limitless, there aren’t enough dumb ideas that can scale AND work to offset China’s output of the very thing these other clowns are trying to mitigate. Until China is brought to heel all of these idiotic ideas are even sillier, even if they could work a little (they can’t) and without unintended consequences. Lost in nearly every conversation in the echo chamber and religion of climate change is the omission of the elephant in the room – China.
Add India, most of SE Asia and Africa to that list. These countries are more interested in getting a meal tomorrow, let alone something that ‘might’ happen 50 years out.
Climate change mantra. No, what they’re trying to do is stop an unstoppable force, Beaufort Gyre, from dumping decades worth of fresh water into the oceans and unleashing a colder future. That’s my best guess: link to m.youtube.com
Arctic
We have achieved “Full Idiocracy”.
The only thing left to do is to start “watering” the crops with Brawndo The Thirst Mutilator (aka Gatorade).
“It’s what plants crave.”
My son taught for some years at the University of Idaho as an adjunct instructor. He had a friend who had her PhD in soil science. She was having trouble getting funding for research because any funding sources wanted experiments or submissions that supported ‘Climate Change’ a priori. Unfortunately for her (but fortunately for truth), she could never find any evidence for Climate Change in her research.
Maybe she should have been doing a PhD in climatology. Lots of evidence there.
Or gender studies…
Yes, there is a lot of evidence of climate change. There is clear moraine a half hour north of me where the ice stopped during the last glaciation. There are wheat fields there now.
Why people want that climate back mystifies me. The typical climate for the last two million years has sucked, the Pliocene was much nicer.
Yup, it’s moronic. People don’t get humans are a tropical species. Cold climates require a tremendous amount of energy to survive.
Thus, cold climates produce smarter and more industrious people.
My annual AC electric bill is much higher than my heating gas bill.
YMMV
A PhD is great.
It means you talked a few members of the Department into giving you one.
“But until a few years ago, many scientists opposed human interventions, fearing a slippery slope that would allow society to avoid making tough decisions about reducing emissions and could ultimately backfire.”
One solution for advanced economies is to halt immigration. Since in those countries population has peaked or falling, that naturally reduces their contribution to social/industrial pollution, whether you believe in climate change or not.
But that’s a solution no “serious” scientist (or elitist) would touch with a long pole.
Immigration is an ecological disaster
Climate Change is not just a hoax, but it’s also a mental disorder. These loons need an Island of their own far away from the rest of humanity. Liberals too.
It is an agenda, best understood as gaslighting.
sigh. Im as libertarian as they come, but the data is clear on this. Ive even seen it with my own eyes growing up in coastal Florida on a canal (sea levels definitely rising. Had to raise our seawall). I also have witnessed receding glaciers in Montana and Chamonix. Find some other culture war crap to harp on.
Funny. My parents live in Florida on the inland waterway and in the forty years they have been there the level of the water has not changed enough to notice. You do have to redo your seawalls periodically because they deteriorate naturally. Are you on the west coast or the east cost?
We need Ice9. Now.
More like Ice 4.5
What a bunch of morons. The governments that fund this madness, that is. It’s just another scam.
Fortunately we can save ourselves by outlawing farming and eating bugs…or something like that.
I urge readers to go to geoengineering.org to truly understand how dire this conversation truly is!
Probably should not be doing this without WW agreement. On the other hand …
So, back to my college days in Geology. We are coming to the end of the Interglacial period. After that another ice age is due. Perhaps that is now “old science” and removed from the text books.
The Magnetosphere continues to weaken, but why worry about that, right?
Absolutely, most people don’t realize that, geologically speaking, we are still in an Ice Age. We are just in one of many interglacial periods within that age ice.
I taught history for many years and I often had opportunity to share about the discovery of North America by the Vikings. They did so during the Medieval Warming Period, around 1000 AD. Their one long-term base in North America was discovered and excavated by researchers in the 1960s — L’Anse aux Meadow in Newfoundland. What is interesting is that it was found that the ocean level was 1.5-3 feet higher then than it is now. So, we still got to melt a lot of polar ice to get where the Vikings were 1000 years ago.
A lot of Canada and the upper US and Europe are rebounding from the weight of the glacial ice that was removed. “higher sea level” is what that is. And, even if that isn’t true, do you think it’s a good thing for sea levels to be three feet higher? A lot of coastal flooding, aint going to do anyone any good.
These climate “scientists” should jump into a volcano.
You have to remember that today, at least in “The West,” pretty much ALL wealth has been transferred to the dumbest of the dumb.
None of whom idiots are even remotely capable of competitively producing anything of real economic value. Meaning anything anyone would freely pay above the cost for.
Instead, the idiots’ only means of appearing to continue to “make money,” is to pretend that “investing” in trivially retarded, never economically viable, childish hype, is how “money” is somehow magically “made.” “I’m like, a visionary since I,like, inveeest in, like toothfairies and, like, Musk,like stuff!!!”
The above is why we have battery cars. It’s why we have “AI” and it’s why “we” “need” to “inveeeest” in “the climate” and “in Ukraine” and “in our allies…” None of which’ resulting outputs anyone would bother paying near the cost of inputs for; meaning all of it simply destroys value. And nothing else.
But, since this gaggle of nothing-but-retards are now the ones who have had all wealth transferred to them; while the indoctrinated masses who have been robbed blind are stupid and gullible enough to still fall for the nonsense that simply blowing the entire “system” and absolutely all it encompasses to smithereens in a complete, grounds up reset, would somehow be some form of bad thing: Making up childbrain stuff for the retardocrati to “inveeeest” in is all that is left. Hence all that is currently done. That’s why this drivel exist. All of it. No other reason at all.
Free money is great for the stock market.
These chemicals could cause a spike in cancer.
Dumping lye into the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere will first kill off fish near the surface, and then create an algae bloom that absorbs more sunlight that warms the atmosphere.
Spraying salt into the air over land will kill plants that naturally remove CO2 from the air.
Any spaced based methods would necessarily decrease the amount of sunlight needed by solar cells.
Please stop the madness before the Earth gets destroyed.
These efforts are going to continue.
Man has been geoengineering for thousands of years (dams, irrigation canals, clear cutting forests etc) and there is no way that genie is getting put back into the bottle.
“These efforts are going to continue.”
And only because there is money to be made. Remember, these Rube-Goldberg silver bullets don’t gotta work. Only vacuum up research monies.
They support a lot of graduate students.
Test post to see if things are fixed with comments going to moderation…