Monday, August 19, 2013

This is absolutely insane (global warming cult wants to wreck the environment)

When it comes to the environment, I deal with the what is, not maybes. I'm not a climatologist, but I do know how to read numbers and I do understand history. If the doomsday CO2 global warming folks want to try to get me on board, get me good measurements for a long period in more areas than a pole, show the causes, and a real solution outside of some bullshit carbon tax/credits that do nothing but make guys like Al Gore and RFK Jr rich while they and their 'environmentally conscientious'
Hollywood buddies live in their mansions and fly on their private jets polluting much more than we do with our 4x4s.

I read this guest USA Today column in the Argus. Frankly, if people actually start doing this stuff in the name of the environment, then they need to be stopped by any means necessary. I've heard similar talk before, including those who want to blow up another Mt Pinatubo type of volcano to promote 'global cooling'. This is modern human arrogance at its worst with the cult of global warming (or 'climate change' as the propagandists use today) which ignores the scientific method. This needs to be stopped by any means necessary. Global warming - caused by CO2, MIGHT be real, and MIGHT be a problem (I'm not convinced it's a bad thing or can be stopped if it is a bad thing). This climate geoengineering plan IS a problem.

From the Argus

Climate geoengineering is the name for the most audacious idea to master nature. Right now, energy companies, scientists, policymakers and even some environmentalists around the world are considering the possibility of attempting to manually override the Earth’s thermostat to counter the effects of global warming.
Geoengineering covers a range of technologies. Some are apparently quite benign, such as painting roofs white so as to reflect solar energy back into space. But, such schemes are also unlikely to have a significant impact on the climate. Those with the greatest current potential also tend to present the greatest risk. The two most often discussed strategies are stratospheric aerosol spraying and oceanic iron fertilization.


The former option would entail spraying sulfur or a similarly reflective compound into the stratosphere via planes or balloons to reflect solar radiation back into space. The projected cost of stratospheric spraying is relatively cheap, in the billions to tens of billions of dollars a year. Proponents argue that scientists could distribute enough reflective particles in the air to return temperatures back to preindustrial levels if we wished.
Oceanic iron fertilization takes its inspiration from the knowledge that algae (which absorb carbon) feed on iron. Consequently, dump iron filings in iron-poor parts of the ocean, and soon you have carbon-absorbing algae blooms. Again, the cost is low.
However, both of these options pose substantial known risks to humans and ecosystems. Stratospheric spraying could substantially reduce precipitation in South and Southeast Asia, potentially shutting down seasonal monsoons that more than a billion people rely upon for growing crops, or imperil replenishment of the ozone layer. Oceanic iron fertilization could result in the proliferation of algae species that won’t support higher order predators, or prove toxic in the marine environment. Moreover, the Earth’s ecology is vastly complex, and both of these technologies may also pose significant unknown risks that are impossible to assess before it is too late.

I'll call this exactly what it is. Dumping on a grand scale.  

You don't master nature. It masters you. History has shown consequences over and over what happens when people try and master nature. It doesn't often work as planned and has unintended consequences. When you build in a floodplain, there's consequences. When you have too many people in the desert (insert Sam Kinison joke), it alters the water supply. When you kill all the predators, the prey are overpopulation, and what they eat is declined, as do other animals dependent on them. When you release a bunch of 20 ft pythons in the Everglades, it causes trouble.

Even so, previous attempts mostly dealt with the what is and not the what ifs. The Erie Canal was a boon to shipping. Ocean ships had access to the Great Lakes in a time of no cars. It also gave us Zebra Mussels in some ship's ballast water 100 years later. Asian carp are threatening the Great Lakes. They were introduced to eat algae in the central US. Unintended consequences occurred. This is what is, not what might be.

Earth is estimated to be 6 billion years old. It has warmed and cooled many times over that period. Humans/proto humans have been a part of earth for about 2.3 million years (if you include 'homo habilis' which not all do), modern humans (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, and civilization has been around for around 10000 years largely starting at the end of the last major ice age. Yet, based on temperature reading from 25 years, or even 125 years, our planet is doomed to fry because of supposed man made 'global warming'. 125 years is a drop in the bucket, even if you are a Young Earth Creationist (which I am not) that believes the earth is 6000 years old.

During the dinosaur era, the earth was much warmer than today. Obviously that wasn't human caused since only on the TV cartoon Flintstones did Dino and Fred walk the earth at the same time. It was a different earth then as continents weren't in the same position as today (and they still are moving slowly with plate tectonics - felt as earthquakes). The continental plates have been roughly in similar positions for the last 23 million years, so that's a good measuring point for 'climate change'.

Has climate changed significantly in the last 23 million years? Yes. Does that predate humans? Yes. All forms by 21 million years. There were heavy aquatic extinctions around 14 million years ago with coincided with growth of Antarctic ice sheets. Under the 'current' 'Quaternary' era of the past 2.5 million years, there has been several 'ice ages' and 'warming periods'. One started 2.5 million years ago as ice caps formed grew during that period (remnants of those are still around today at the poles).

There was a heavy warm period around 125k ago warmer than today. Forests were on the North cape of Norway. That's tundra today. Trees were on southern Baffin island (tundra) which is now above the tree line for that area (Northern Quebec currently). Humans were alive then, but as far as we know, mostly hunter gatherers. Following that was the last glacial period of about 100,000 years (until about 10,000 years ago) where the Laurentide Ice Sheet extended to Wisconsin. In the modern period, there was a warm medieval period (900-1250AD - time of Viking movements) and followed by the 'little ice age' (glaciers moved) which ended around 1850 - ironically right before most of the global warming measurements begin. The late 1700's and early 1800's period had some real cold periods, partly due to volcanoes.

I remember Mt Pinatubo. It showed how quickly nature can change weather and potentially climate. A long dormant volcano (500 years) erupted with one of the biggest blasts in the 20th century - much bigger than Mt St Helens in 1980. The next summer was cool. Temperatures barely hit the 70's most of the summer and it was always cloudy.  Other major volcanos have had the same or in some cases more drastic effects.

This geoengineering is bad news, especially over a 'might' and not a what is. It shows an incredible ignorance of history and an arrogance that often backfires.

No comments: