Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Planet cooling idea could cause climate chaos

28 posts in this topic

A proposal to reduce global warming using tiny reflective particles has been condemned by scientists.

Climate researchers looking for methods to help curb the effects of global warming have proposed injecting large numbers of tiny reflective particles in to the atmosphere to block out the sun, but scientists looking in to the idea have warned that it could cause more problems than it solves by creating droughts and climate chaos in some of the world's poorest countries.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/260425/planet-cooling-idea-could-cause-climate-chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the scientists against this type of intervention. How arrogant. People really do have an exaggerated sense of importance.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you launch half cooked ideas without showing that there will be no secondary effects, no wonder scientists would be skeptical.

On the other hand:Why are they bothering to cool down the planet if "it is not happening" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no global warming going on, we are entering an ice age, and no i`m not just saying this because of the recent bad weather i`ve been saying this for the last 40 years, there will be polar bears in mainland Scotland before 2100 make a note in your diary.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no global warming going on, we are entering an ice age, and no i`m not just saying this because of the recent bad weather i`ve been saying this for the last 40 years, there will be polar bears in mainland Scotland before 2100 make a note in your diary.

There is no graft to be made with global cooling so the politicians avoid it. Global warming, however, brings in teh big bucks for the crooks.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no global warming going on, we are entering an ice age,

And what evidence caused you to reach this conclusion?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's hilarious. Now you know why you shouldn't trust the popular press.

Doug

P.S.: I note that you don't think the profit motive is appropriate when applied to climate, but you have no objection when it is applied to health care. So what is it about the profit motive that you don't like? Would you mind explaining this inconsistency?

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Link didn't work.

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we just plant more vegetation? CO2 used by plants, they release O2, CO2 levels drop. Earth cools. I know it's not that simple, but it should be.

There is no global warming going on, we are entering an ice age, and no i`m not just saying this because of the recent bad weather i`ve been saying this for the last 40 years, there will be polar bears in mainland Scotland before 2100 make a note in your diary.

There is no global warming going on, we are entering an ice age, and no i`m not just saying this because of the recent bad weather i`ve been saying this for the last 40 years, there will be polar bears in mainland Scotland before 2100 make a note in your diary.

I'm sure you can see them at the zoo already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we just plant more vegetation? CO2 used by plants, they release O2, CO2 levels drop. Earth cools. I know it's not that simple, but it should be.

I'm sure you can see them at the zoo already!

That would be an idea... and probably would work too (up to a certain degree) for a little time... until those plants die and by decomposition release the carbon again.

Our problem is not carbon, our problem is that we are releasing carbon that nature had sequestered millions of years ago and by that making civilization possible... which now releases the carbon again...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we just plant more vegetation? CO2 used by plants, they release O2, CO2 levels drop. Earth cools. I know it's not that simple, but it should be.

There isn't enough space to plant that many trees. We still need farms to grow food and places to live.

That being said, there are still places where we can plant more trees. But they are mostly odd areas like small abandoned fields that are inefficient to farm and areas that have been abandoned because erosion has made them unfarmable. Also, we can't plant trees everywhere. Grasslands are part of a functioning ecosystem and are needed both for domestic livestock and to preserve a natural grass environment.

Estimates are that we need about 20% of the planet's surface in "natural" condition to maintain the earth's functions.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's hilarious. Now you know why you shouldn't trust the popular press.

Doug

P.S.: I note that you don't think the profit motive is appropriate when applied to climate, but you have no objection when it is applied to health care. So what is it about the profit motive that you don't like? Would you mind explaining this inconsistency?

Doug

I am not sure I fully understand your question, Doug but will try an answer anyways. I don't think that there is manmade global warming, I think it is a ploy to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor and line the pockets of corrupt officials (see food for oil program as ref.) in transit. I also think it is a way to further erode capitalism by crippling the "taxed" countries ability to compete with the "untaxed" countries. The Kyoto treaty was a fine example of this and if enacted would have done very little to actually address global warming but would've destroyed our economy. Finally, governments shouldn't be in the business of making a profit by taxing their citizens or transferring their citizen's wealth to other countries and lining their pockets, they should be governing and allow business to thrive.

Healthcare, on the other hand, when run by the private sector, runs fine, we have the best healthcare on earth, or did, but when the government involves itself with massive programs like medicare and medicaid, riddled with fraud and then controls how insurance companies can operate, at the insurance companies behest I am sure, we see the out of control pricing we have now. Throw in the rapacious lawyers suing and winning millions of dollars and you have a mess. Simply opening competition between insurance companies across state lines, cleaning up the fraud iin medicare and enacting tort reform would have greatly increased competition thereby lowering costs and drastically lowering the costs of malpractice insurance,

I get a feeling you don't like the word profit. You need to fix that but remember the government doesn't produce anything, industry does and socialism has proven itself to be a failure over and over again.. Sociailzing industry destroys it (see the newly discovered oil fields off Brazil and the boom that never happened) and socializng medicine, which is where we are headed, will destroy as well. Single payer is the goal and it will be a failure.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists: 1970s - Global cooling/new ice age

1990s - Global warming/rising sea levels

2000s - Climate Change (covers ever contingency!)

2010s - Global cooling/new ice age

Well, that nails that down.,...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure I fully understand your question, Doug but will try an answer anyways. I don't think that there is manmade global warming, I think it is a ploy to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor and line the pockets of corrupt officials (see food for oil program as ref.) in transit. I also think it is a way to further erode capitalism by crippling the "taxed" countries ability to compete with the "untaxed" countries. The Kyoto treaty was a fine example of this and if enacted would have done very little to actually address global warming but would've destroyed our economy. Finally, governments shouldn't be in the business of making a profit by taxing their citizens or transferring their citizen's wealth to other countries and lining their pockets, they should be governing and allow business to thrive.

Healthcare, on the other hand, when run by the private sector, runs fine, we have the best healthcare on earth, or did, but when the government involves itself with massive programs like medicare and medicaid, riddled with fraud and then controls how insurance companies can operate, at the insurance companies behest I am sure, we see the out of control pricing we have now. Throw in the rapacious lawyers suing and winning millions of dollars and you have a mess. Simply opening competition between insurance companies across state lines, cleaning up the fraud iin medicare and enacting tort reform would have greatly increased competition thereby lowering costs and drastically lowering the costs of malpractice insurance,

I get a feeling you don't like the word profit. You need to fix that but remember the government doesn't produce anything, industry does and socialism has proven itself to be a failure over and over again.. Sociailzing industry destroys it (see the newly discovered oil fields off Brazil and the boom that never happened) and socializng medicine, which is where we are headed, will destroy as well. Single payer is the goal and it will be a failure.

Thanks for the reply. I suspect that we are closer together on most issues than either of us would like to admit.

On global warming: I am a dendrochronologist. I work with tree-ring data daily. That data shows a clear rise in temperature over the last 150 years, with most of that during the last forty. There are several datasets showing surface temps. They all show it. With the numbers in front of you, it's hard to miss. Those who claim warming isn't happening have no evidence to back them up; ALL the datasets show it getting warmer.

In the Holocene before 1800, volcanic aerosols pretty much dictated what the climate did. There's a "volcano signature" that can be identified in tree rings. My own work shows that for a period of six-to-ten years following a major eruption, Arkansas short-leaf pines record an increased number of severe winter storms. I am two-to-three weeks from submitting a shortleaf pine regional chronology paper for publication. The next paper, which I will start writing as soon as I finish this one (The research is already complete.), will describe how to identify severe winter weather signatures in shortleaf pine. Other species should show similar signatures (Work with oaks has already shown a bipartite ice storm signature in them.).

Since 1800, the tree ring climate signal has been less-influenced by volcanic aerosols and more influenced by other factors, particularly summer precipitation and CO2 concentration. I can (and have) predicted the width of tree rings using the CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa - they correlate. There is no doubt that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising; the peak levels are now routinely above 400 ppmbv. Since about 1980, the strength of the precip signal has been weakening and the strength of the CO2 signal has been increasing. That's called "the divergence problem" and is the result of CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere.

The physics, particularly the absorption spectrum of CO2, are the source of the "global warming theory." They predict that incoming solar radiation will be absorbed by CO2 molecules at one wavelength and re-emitted at another as heat. That's basic Freshman physics combined with organic chemistry. Water vapor in the air interferes with the absorption process; thus, warming is more severe in dry areas (the Arctic interior in winter and dry deserts in summer). And that exactly predicts where warming is the greatest - Amarillo, Texas in the US (summer) and Keewatin and the Yukon in Canada (winter). CO2 levels are thus tied directly to rates of temperature rise. No doubt about that either.

The only question left is: where is all this CO2 coming from? There are several sources, some natural, most human-caused. As the climate warms, formerly frozen permafrost melts and begins to decompose. The Arctic tundras include very little mineral soil in the top layers; it's nearly all decaying plant matter. As the melting depth increases, more plant debris thaws and begins to decompose. The same process is occurring on the bottom of lakes and ponds. This is a natural process that is being accelerated by higher temperatures. Methane released by the decay (Plant remains are about 40% carbon.) goes into the atmosphere where it oxides to CO2. You can demonstrate the decay process for yourself by taking a plastic bag, filling it with water and holding the opening over one of those under-water methane bubble streams. When you get it filled, take a match... If you're still alive, you'll understand where that methane came from.

When a farmer clears new land to plow and plant, he accelerates the decay of plant matter in the soil. Tree cutting does the same thing. It is this decomposition of plant matter in the soil that is a major cause of CO2 release. It is not just industrial pollution that is fertilizing the air with carbon. Most of the world's people cook and heat with wood. The process extracts only about half of the energy that's present in the wood, so the level of pollution from that source is much greater than it needs to be - and, all that wood cutting is also reducing soil carbon.

The list of how much CO2 is released or absorbed by each process is called a carbon budget. That's the weakest part of global warming theory: it's hard to measure just how much is coming from which source. Essentially, the list is a balance sheet - what is released to the air must be absorbed somewhere else, or the atmospheric level of CO2 goes up. BUT: you can't make a global carbon budget work unless you include human beings. There aren't enough natural sources of carbon.

Agreed that the Kyoto Protocols were not very good. At most, they would have reduced carbon emissions by one year's worth of carbon over an eight-year period. There was no way they would work, whether the US participated or not. That bit about destroying our economy is just hype; all the BS managed to obscure the fact that the protocols wouldn't have solved the problem. The most-telling detail in all that is that the Bush Administration promised a carbon-control bill that wouldn't "destroy the economy," then did nothing at all. It never presented an alternative. "Another "wonderful idea" that will not work is cap-and-trade. That only moves pollution from one place to another without reducing it. In the US, carbon credits are bought and sold on futures markets. This requires carbon credit brokers and certification organizations to audit the program - and add to the cost. "Carbon mitigation" doesn't work either: I toured a wildlife area in Louisiana that was established with mitigation money. Some of the money went into tree planting, but most of it was used to buy the land and THAT made no difference whatever in atmospheric CO2. So you are right that a lot of money is being spent on very little.

So how do we solve the problem? - a carbon fee (Call it a tax, if you like.) charged at the source - the well-head, the mine portal or the port-of-entry (based on the product's birth-to-death carbon footprint.). This will raise the price of carbon-using products in direct proportion to the amount of carbon in them. BUT: the money must be returned to product purchasers, the little guys, to make the system work. It has to be paid out on a per-capita basis, perhaps adjusted for recipient age, but it MUST go back to people who purchase things with it. The money does no good in some billionaire's bank account. It does no good in a government program. It has to go to people who are deciding what to buy with it. That's where the market comes in: things that have more carbon in them cost more. A free market will discriminate against carbon! And that's one very practical use of capitalism. The free market is the most-efficient system yet devised to distribute goods and services.

About health care: I can tell you that my personal health care outlays have gone down since Obamacare was passed - and I do not get any subsidies. Just the law itself has reduced my costs. Maybe we could also take some of your suggestions. The theory is that if everybody has insurance, hospitals will not have to over-charge some customers to pay for others. That's fine with me - I am the one they're over-charging. Health care quality could be vastly improved by getting rid of incompetent doctors. Licensing and certification have not been able to do that. It was hoped that lawsuits could serve that function, but liability insurance just spreads the cost to everybody. What to do? Require patients to sign a hold-harmless agreement with the doctor for pain-and-suffering before any procedure is administered. If the patient wants to be compensated for an accident/injury caused by the doctor, he should be able to buy insurance against that possibility - insurance sold by the doctor or hospital. It would then be the patient's choice whether he bought the insurance or not. Lawsuits would be limited to actual cost of medical expenses for resulting injuries. The underwriting insurance company would be encouraged to raise its prices if the doctor turned out to be high-risk.

Back to the free market: there's no such thing. Every market is regulated, even if its just a decision not to regulate it at this time. What people want, especially business owners, is to regulate the market in a way that benefits THEM. We are routinely treated to business owners circulating petitions against some new store that wants to move to town. They want to create an arrangement between themselves and local government to restrict the market. But that's not a free market and it's not capitalism without a free market. Government/business hegemony is called: FASCISM. It's what Hitler had; it's what Mussolini had; and I fear it's what we're getting. I fear that a corporate dictatorship will be no improvement on a communist one.

I am preparing a proposal for an applied-research grant, which I hope to have ready sometime in the fall. "Grants" are not free money: somebody makes a proposal and a funding agency or private corporation decides if they want to fund it. Usually it's the agency or company that solicits proposals. At any rate, I have been studying the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) of the United States so I can write that proposal. The PLSS was mostly set up and run by the government. They gave business a couple opportunities to get involved, but those businesses bungled things badly. The Ohio Company blew its profits on Wall Street speculation so it could not provide its customers with protection from Indian attack (Battle of Big Bottom on January 2, 1791 - eleven dead). Congress gave the company the Donation Tract (100,000 acres) to help pay for a militia to protect the settlers. Not only that, the company couldn't make the next installment and Congress cancelled its contract. The Scioto Company sold land it hadn't paid for and didn't yet own. Congress cancelled its contract and compensated its victims by giving them the French Tract near Portsmouth, Ohio. And Judge Symmes (Symmes Purchase) not only got his surveys so messed up that after traversing only 12 miles, the northeast corner in T2 R2 is one-and-half miles from where it belongs. Symmes also sold land he didn't own - some of it two or three times. After that, Congress turned the program over to the General Land Office and never again sold parcels of land to developers for resale. Business is not always the best answer - sometimes, it's the worst answer.

I used to have my own business as a consulting forester in Colorado, so I like profits. As a matter of fact, I LOVE profits. After two years, I went under, but I'm not crying. It all came out for the best. But I am somewhat dismayed that the US government decided to bail out Bank of America, Fannie Mae and some of the other screw-ups and hung me out to dry. If we are going to have a free market, then people who go into that market must be free to fail. Otherwise, they can't justify charges made for risk. And that gives the government the responsibility of setting prices to protect the little guy. Price setting has never worked well, so I prefer letting the incompetents reap the harvest that they sow.

But the worst part of business - BIG business - is the threat it poses to democracy.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you are a dendrochronologist as we have had that discussion before. You deal with a narrow data set based on 150 years of tree ring analysis and make wide ranging assumptions that aren't supported by the larger data set of known ice ages and warming periods. That's fine, as you said you had your own business based, I assume, on climate analysis through tree rings and then the bottom dropped out of the global warming market and you are understandably upset. The bottom dropped out, however, because there were frauds pushing false outcomes and changing the data to suit there beliefs and assuage their paymasters. I'll address the rest tomorrow as it is late here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you are a dendrochronologist as we have had that discussion before. You deal with a narrow data set based on 150 years of tree ring analysis and make wide ranging assumptions that aren't supported by the larger data set of known ice ages and warming periods. That's fine, as you said you had your own business based, I assume, on climate analysis through tree rings and then the bottom dropped out of the global warming market and you are understandably upset. The bottom dropped out, however, because there were frauds pushing false outcomes and changing the data to suit there beliefs and assuage their paymasters. I'll address the rest tomorrow as it is late here.

The datasets I use most go back to 1667 (Lake Winona Chronology). The tree ring record goes back 17,000 years, though there are only 20 or so datasets that reach back a thousand years. But, you can download ice core, borehole and sediment core data from the same site I get tree ring datasets from. Some of those go back millions. The only datasets that really apply to our current climate are the Holocene (10,660 YBP) sets (The entire climate system shifted at the end of the Younger Dryas, changing the conditions under which the climate system operates.). There are two tree-ring datasets that reach back that far and two more under construction. There are 9500 tree-ring datasets that reach back 100 years or more.

As for corruption or scientific misconduct, I wish you would be specific about the cases you are referring to. I have reviewed some of the most-famous ones and found no serious problems with the research. I am specifically referring to Michael Mann's 1998 "hockey stick" paper.

I was a consulting forester. Mostly I did forest inventories, forest management planning, thinning, timber sales, dwarf-mistletoe control, windbreak and wildlife plantings and a few appraisals. That business was not involved with research at all - you assume wrong. Some businesses should go under - mine was one of those. Like I said, it all worked out; I'm not sorry the business went under. And if I can get a contract out of that PLSS proposal, I'll be back in business for myself.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this..pretty interesting

There is no measurable global warming of the atmosphere for

over 17 years.

http://climatism.files.wordpre/...

Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded in September 2013 since the beginning of the satellite era.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The Arctic ice has grown 50% this year, the ice volume has increase 9,000 cubic

kilometers.

http://www.ibtimes.com/arctic-...

The upper Arctic temperatures this summer were the coldest since recording

began in 1958.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/mea...

Polar Bear populations are today the largest ever recorded,

an increase of 400% since the 1950s.

http://polarbearscience.com/20...

The Atlantic Hurricane season was the second slowest ever recorded and the

fourth weakest since 1950.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...

Global hurricane/typhoon strength is at 50 year lows

http://policlimate.com/tropica...

http://policlimate.com/tropica...

U.S. forest fires in 2013 were the fewest in three decades.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bc...

U.S. tornadoes in 2013 were the fewest ever recorded.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/20...

There is essentially no loss of total global polar ice in

the past 35 years when measuring the ice at both poles

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c...

Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. In the past few

decades the rate of sea level rise is not increasing.

http://www.climate.gov/sites/d...

Not a single one of the 72 climate models has accurately

predicted global temperature change.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this..pretty interesting

There is no measurable global warming of the atmosphere for

over 17 years.

http://climatism.files.wordpre/...

You might want to double check that information. The 2013 calendar year data isn't available yet. What your source is looking at is the meteorological year (December through November). He is also using the HadCrut3v dataset, which is only one of the eight that are available. It shows 1998 to have been the warmest year ever, with 2010 in second place. The NOAA (Hansen) dataset shows 2010 to have been the warmest. The Crutem4 dataset shows 2007 to have been the warmest with 2010 in second place and 1998 in third place. Crutem4v dataset shows 2007 to have been the warmest, followed by 2007, 2005 and 1998 in that order. Crutem3 shows 1998 to have been the warmest, followed by 2005, 2013 and 2010. Crutem3v shows the same thing as Crutem3. HadSST2 shows 1998 the warmest, followed by 2003. And HadSST3 shows 1998 the warmest followed by 2010 and 2003 with 2013 not available yet.

I'm not saying that your source is deliberately cherry-picking the data; many people don't even know that there are multiple datasets.

The differences in the datasets stem from the use of different weather stations and different spatial-correction procedures. None is clearly superior to the others. Suffice it to say that determining a global average temperature is not an easy thing to do.

One can argue whether the "slump" or "hiatus" in temperature rise is a real thing or not. It hasn't gone on long enough to show up in statistical tests taken over the standard 30-year span. Before 1800, volcanic aerosols controlled the climate. They are having less affect now, but are still with us. The slow-down in temps appears to be the result of some volcanic eruptions. What happens once the eruptions stop and the aerosols clear?

I wouldn't get too excited about one year's weather being unusual. The situation could easily reverse itself next year. Weather usually blows hot or cold for three or four years at a stretch; a two-to-four-year slump in temps doesn't mean much. Do you think all those one-year records for 2013 might be related?

Another detail you might wish to double-check: the all-time high sea level occurred during the Roman Period (250-400 AD) when the global ocean stood 5.6 feet above modern. There were two other high stands: one about 1750 BC and one about 1100 BC. The 20,000-year figure is an average. But that includes the melt-off of the continental ice sheets (The Last Glacial Maximum was 19,000 YBP.), a process which ended about 3000 years ago when the world's current beaches formed. It is what has happened since then that is important.

There are over 300 climate models. Spencer overlooked a few. The other problem is: how accurate is "accurate?" If the model does the job it was designed to do, it can be considered accurate. Spencer posts no standard errors or other statistical data about the accuracy of the various models. In other words, accuracy isn't a black-and-white issue. It is always a shade of gray. Before you can say whether a model is "accurate" you have to define "accurate."

Your sources aren't lying, but neither are they being entirely truthful.

Doug

P.S.: Of all the links you posted, only the one to Spencer's website worked. Is it my browser, or is something suspicious going on here?

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are misunderstanding what this article is saying, it is pointing out the dangers of trying to cool the planet through geo-engineering whilst leaving the climate change drivers (CO2 and land use change) unaddressed. It is not saying that the planet is naturally cooling and there is absolutely no evidence to support a belief that the planet is currently in a cooling stage. The evidence over the last 17 years clearly shows that the planet is rising in temperature - but at a slower rate than previously. The energy balance of the planet has not flipped into net loss of energy and is still accumulating heat energy which is been sequestered in the deep ocean by the prevalence of a long series of El-Nino events.

When you cannot even understand the gist of the original article then you have little chance of understanding the subtleties of real climate science.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you cannot even understand the gist of the original article then you have little chance of understanding the subtleties of real climate science.

Br Cornelius

Long time, no sea. Welcome back.

Isn't that last sentence a little blunt? I don't think anybody is deliberately misrepresenting things here. Maybe a little confused, that's all.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time, no sea. Welcome back.

Isn't that last sentence a little blunt? I don't think anybody is deliberately misrepresenting things here. Maybe a little confused, that's all.

Doug

I don't intend to be back as such, I realized something profound some time back - there is no reaching those in deep denial. As such the effort only hurts me.

The mis-characterization of this article by some here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. No need to be gentle at this stage of the debate since we are only dealing with the deeply delusional who will never be reached. The work of convincing the general public has now been realized and its time for the public to start demanding appropriate action from their representatives.

Time to move on.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mis-characterization of this article by some here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. No need to be gentle at this stage of the debate since we are only dealing with the deeply delusional who will never be reached.

That is probably true of a couple of folks on here, but I don't think Subsonic should be included on that list and that's who I was talking to.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So scientists 40 years ago had an idea and it was revised/scrapped when new data disproved it...

That's what science is all about.

Why don't we just plant more vegetation? CO2 used by plants, they release O2, CO2 levels drop. Earth cools. I know it's not that simple, but it should be.

In essence, it is that simple :) What most people don't understand is, it doesn't matter how much CO2 we produce. What matters is the net change (i.e. amount produced - amount used). If that's more than zero, the overall amount in the atmosphere (the stuff that affects global temperature) gradually increases year on year.

So, if we take your idea, we keep CO2 production the same and increase usage of it (we call these sources and sinks), decreasing the net change. As Doug says, there isn't enough land to do it with trees but there are other carbon sinks. Investigating the possibility of using these to balance our effect is a vast area of research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So scientists 40 years ago had an idea and it was revised/scrapped when new data disproved it...

There was an article in one of the journals that miscalculated the Milankovic cycles. It was nothing more than an arithmetic mistake, but it got past the reviewers. In the early-to-mid 60s there was a minor downturn in temps; it lasted less than eight years. The popular press put 2 and 2 together and got 22. And the rest, as they say, is history.

So, if we take your idea, we keep CO2 production the same and increase usage of it (we call these sources and sinks), decreasing the net change. As Doug says, there isn't enough land to do it with trees but there are other carbon sinks. Investigating the possibility of using these to balance our effect is a vast area of research.

There's an article in the current issue of "Science" that describes an Arctic carbon sink that may be enough to offset melting permafrost.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.