Geoengineering: a bad idea whose time may come

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:46 PM GMT on December 19, 2008

Share this Blog

Yesterday, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), climate change scientists discussed the risks and benefits of deliberately altering Earth's climate through "geoengineering". One measure of the concern scientists have about Earth's climate could be gauged by the standing-room only crowd of 200 that packed the presentation room. The eleven speakers at the session laid out some radical and dangerous ideas for deliberately altering Earth's climate. They uniformly cautioned that the uncertainties and dangers of implementing any of these schemes was high, but that geoengineering may be necessary if efforts to control greenhouse gases fail and the climate begins to undergo rapid and destructive changes.

David Keith presented the results of a week-long workshop held earlier this year that brought together ten of the world's experts on geoengineering. He emphasized that even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, the possibility of dangerous climate change capable of causing a "climate emergency" may still be higher than 1%, thanks to the tremendous inertia of the heat stored in the oceans. Of course, we're not going to stop emitting CO2 today. Dealing with a future climate emergency is technically feasible, if we inject large quantities of sulfur into the tropical stratosphere via aircraft, artillery, or tethered balloons with hoses. Sulfur injection into the stratosphere is considered to be the leading candidate for geoengineering, since nature has done this many times via volcanic eruptions, and we have some idea of what to expect. As I reported in a blog post earlier this year, the idea is being championed by Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen.

One problem with injecting sulfur into the stratosphere is that it tends to settle back to the surface in about ten months. A. V. Eliseev explained that in order to keep global temperatures under control in a world with ever-increasing CO2 emissions, we would have to inject an ever increasing amount of sulfur into the atmosphere. His computer model results showed that if a funding lapse occurred in, say, the year 2075, the atmosphere would rapidly warm by 5-9°F (3-5°C) over most of North America, Europe, and Asia, within a decade of cessation of the geoengineering efforts. The resulting shock to ecosystems would be extremely dangerous to civilization.

Richard Turco of UCLA estimated that injecting enough sulfur in the stratosphere to properly geoengineer the climate would require 3000 aircraft sorties per day, and cost $50-$100 billion per year. Model results he presented showed a large amount of uncertainty as to what might happen, and he cautioned that there was "no guarantee of success, and failure would be catastrophic".

A. Robrock of Rutgers disagreed with Dr. Turco, and estimated that the cost of injecting the required amount of sulfur into the stratosphere would by less that $5 billion per year, provided the U.S. military would let scientists use 167 of the existing fleet of 522 F15C Eagle jets to do the job. After all, he reasoned, why wouldn't the military want to use their aircraft to confront our enemy (global warming?) High-altitude fighter jets would be required to do the job, since ordinary jetliners cannot fly high enough to penetrate into the stratosphere. He cautioned that such a fleet of aircraft would have to fly three missions per day, and their exhaust gases would probably cause significant destruction of Earth's protective ozone layer. Furthermore, modeling studies show that we don't know what size particles to make, where to put the sulfur, and what uneven effects the efforts might have on Earth's climate. He concluded, "there are many reasons not to do geoengineering".

A more ecological approach to geoengineering was presented by Phil Rasch of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and by Jim Haywood of Britain's Met Office Hadley Center. They proposed building a fleet of wind-powered ships known as Fletter vessels (Figure 1) that would spray large amounts of sea salt into the air in regions where there are existing stratocumulus clouds. The sea salt would act as nuclei around which moisture could condense, making the clouds more reflective. A fleet of approximately 66 of these vessels would be required to seed the clouds over 30% of the globe, to balance a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, they cautioned that while this solution would be relatively cheap, the technology to implement this scheme would be difficult. Furthermore, studies performed with climate models showed that the resulting climate shift would not be uniform, and many areas would experience drought. In particular, Dr. Haywood showed the possibility of severe drought in the Amazon rain forest and in the Southwest U.S.

Figure 1. A conceptual picture of Flettner spray vessel with Thom fences. These wind-driven vessels have vertical spinning cylinders that use the Magnus effect to produce forces perpendicular to the wind direction. Anton Flettner built a ship using this technology that crossed the Atlantic in 1926. The proposed geoengineering Flettner vessels would sail over ocean regions covered with stratocumulus clouds and make the existing clouds whiter by spraying small salt particles into the air. Image is copyright J. MacNeill 2006. For more information on these vessels, see Salter at al., 2008, "Sea-going hardware for the cloud albedo method of reversing global warming", Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A, 366, Number 1882, pp3989-4006, 13 November 2008.

Katharine Ricke of Carnagie Mellon University cautioned that the foreign policy community has virtually no awareness of geoengineering issues, and would be totally unprepared for the possibility of some country deciding to unilaterally attempt a geoengineering program on their own. She suggested that an effort needs to be made to promote international agreements on geoengineering, perhaps including binding treaties.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 433 - 383

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

agree with jimcripwell @11:32. However, I think I would go further and suggest that aj1983 may have allowed his political leanings to affect his scientific objectivity, assuming his credentials are as stated.

I am a professional geophysicist with a strong background in mathematics and paleoclimatology. I, too, have studied the subject of AGW, because I refuse to accept anyone's statements concerning AGW (pro or con) without deriving/verifying the science and looking at the raw data myself. I think we all can agree that arguments on both sides of the debate (which is NOT over, BTW), often rely upon assumptions that have not been completely validated. I have also seen numerous logical and mathematical errors committed on both sides. Hopefully, this very interesting solar cycle we are about to enter into will help to shed light on the subject, and help resolve some of the issues that are still in doubt.

For the benefit of aj1983, I will point out only two (of many) problems with the theory of GHG-driven GW:

(1). aj1983 states,

"Also there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature over the last million years. CO2 and temperatures are coupled, which means if you increase temperature you will increase CO2, but if you increase CO2 this will also increase temperature".

Partially true. Using oxygen isotope ratios as a proxy for temperature and entrained atmospheric samples from deep ice cores, we have learned that CO2 tracks temperature with an average lag of about 800 years, likely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. It is NOT true that an increase in CO2 will increase average temperature. If aj1983's statement were correct, the earth would eventually broil as a result of runaway heating due to positive feedback: CO2 increases temperature, which increases CO2, which increases temperature, which... !

The proof that CO2 does not significantly control temperature can be seen at the CO2 and temperature peaks and troughs within the ice core data we are all familiar with (even Al Gore showed the data in his fantasy film). At each peak in temperature (interglacial periods), CO2 continues to increase, probably from oceanic out-gassing, but atmospheric temperature turns down, ignoring the fictitious "CO2 forcing" signal that is the fantasy of the pro-AGW crowd. At the troughs, CO2 concentration continues to decrease for about 800 years after the temperature trend reverses and begins to climb. Where is the influence of CO2 concentration upon temperature? Temperature clearly leads CO2; there is NO evidence (no data) that it can ever be the other way around.

(2). CO2 is capable of absorbing infrared photons in only three narrow spectral wavelength bands, centered at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, because of the limited number of asymmetric vibrational modes possible in the CO2 molecule. Even with spectral line broadening due to atmospheric pressure, these three wavelength bands comprise a very tiny portion of the black body radiation emitted by the earth. Therefore, very little of the infrared energy may be retarded by CO2 along it's journey back into space.

In addition, water vapor has significant effects at two of the CO2 absorption lines. It is well-known and acknowledged by all, that water vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2. Water vapor fully absorbs the 2.7 micron wavelengths, leaving nothing for CO2 to accomplish at that frequency. Water vapor also exhibits a significant effect at the 15 micron wavelength. At 4.3 microns, however, water vapor is transparent, leaving CO2 all alone to do it's thing. How can the pro-AGW contingent expect us to believe that increased atmospheric CO2 will produce massive climatic effects, when it is only capable of retarding the radiation of a single narrow bandwidth centered at 4.3 microns, and a portion of another (15 microns) out of the earth's entire black body radiation bandwidth?

The above represent only two of the many arguments against CO2 as a forcing agent for the global climate. There are many others, such as the saturation argument (wavelengths at which CO2 is active are already fully absorbed, so additional CO2 will have negligible affect).

I believe that the present global warming hysteria is primarily a symptom of a serious lack of science education globally. Many otherwise intelligent people have bought the snake oil, trusting the promoters of AGW and assuming they have solid science on their side, without analyzing the data for themselves. Some of the key AGW promoters (those with technical backgrounds who should know better) actually seem to be selling a political agenda. If more of the public were capable of their own technical analysis of the issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic Sea Ice Coverage 2008 vs 1995
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Repost from a couple of days ago because it is soooo pertinent to what we usually do in this blog:

Woah, now this is interesting...

"The life cycles of two real tropical cyclones successfully predicted with a global model that resolves cloud systems

Atmospheric models that resolve clouds have greatly contributed to understanding local and regional climate; excessive computational needs have in the past allowed these models to be run only over limited areas. The increasing capability of high-end computers now allows numerical simulations with horizontal resolutions high enough to resolve cloud systems in a global model. Fudeyasu et al. (2008) analyzed initial results from the global Nonhydrostatic Icosahedral Atmospheric Model (NICAM), developed by Japanese scientists. In their study, NICAM simulation successfully reproduced the life cycles of two real tropical cyclones that formed in the Indian Ocean in 2006s austral summer. Initialized with atmospheric conditions that were present a few weeks before the cyclones formed, the model captured the timing of formation, motions, and overall evolution of the observed cyclones. The successful simulation is attributed to the realistic representation of the large-scale circulation and the embedded convective vortices. Thus, NICAM provides high temporal and spatial resolution data sets for detailed studies of tropical cyclone genesis and evolution, potentially ushering in a new era for weather and climate predictions."

From GRL abstract.

Successfully modeling 2 TCs from a few weeks before formation, through cyclogenesis, and then the full evolution of the systems. Cool.

Now if we could take this methodology and come up with an operational TC model capable and skilled at cyclogenesis through landfall (and beyond) with a 3 week lead time. Ah, the possibilities...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
"Reducing direct sunlight coming to the surface will reduce primary productivity."

This assumes that sunlight is the limiting factor in plant growth, which generally isn't the case in nature. Think about the Olympic Peninsula with lots of cloudy days and lots of plant growth versus southern Utah with very few cloudy days and not much plant growth. In large stretches of the ocean, lack of iron limits algae growth so reducing sunlight isn't going to have a large effect on productivity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Micheal, that graph of the arctic sea ice extent looks odd to me. It doesn't look natural. It just suddenly, seemingly, cuts off. It'll resume again I'm sure, but it still looks out of place, imho. Maybe Santa Claus is performing his own geoengineering project to save his north pole factory and it went awry.

Is that change in arctic sea ice extent somehow related to the coldspell the northwestern and middle US states are experiencing?

nonamenm... The problem with saying that we shouldn't meddle with nature is that in the same sentence you say we should reduce what we're currently doing. Reduce what? Reduce CO2? Aren't we, by reducing our CO2 emissions, meddling with nature? Is that not going to alter nature somehow? Are we certain that the law of unintended consequences doesn't also apply in this instance?

moonrocker... socialism? Government involvment isn't such a far out idea when you consider we're still a democracy. The problem is that the number of people representing us stays hte same, but our population increases - fewer and fewer people represent us in governemnt. That can't be good!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks for the info Shepherd. I'm not an experienced blogger. Don't want to ruffle any feathers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Beware the law of unintended consequences. Reducing direct sunlight coming to the surface will reduce primary productivity. This in turn will both impact the food chain and also reduce CO2 uptake.

Not a smart move.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Interdisciplinary comparisons are welcome unless there is a dire weather situation exchange or someone starts overthehill candidate support.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
Sorry for the distraction into sociology/politics from weather. Unfortuantely, the two have become interlinked by the climate change arguement. Now I've been warned that I'm supposed to be talking about "tropical weather." My original entry was responding to Jeff's Climate Change meeting blog. Not sure how tropical weather got involved.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
shepard, it sounds like both the AGU and the NSIDC are both in agreement. What is the conflict?
So we did have a "good volcano year" not since '91 have we had this much sulfur go up. Pretty startling that not much effect is expected, especially with a move baFindings include evidence that the predicted amplification of Arctic warming caused by decreasing sea ice has already begun (Stroeve); large increases in tundra greenness along North America's Arctic coasts (Walker); the discovery of new seeps of the greenhouse gas methane along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (Semiletov); and a lengthening snowmelt season and a second year of ice mass loss in Greenland (Tedescock into La Nina conditions. Perhaps this has helped with the dramatic ice recovery after a scary Sept.

Stsimguy...Combining comments in same paragraph, maybe shows my confusion.
What did I miss?...LOL

Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
To shepherd: Thanks for the words...I knew you were light of heart.

To Cot: I too am worried about the human element. Specifically, tyranny. Despots typically gain a stronghold while the people are in the throws of some crisis (real, preceived or predicted) The usual safegards are overridden on behalf of the common good. (we can see a version of this in the government's reactions to the current monitary crisis) Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals (which advocates rebellion and Socialism for our country) points to environmental issues as an excellent cause for the government to seize on in the pursuit of unfettered regulation and control of the people.
And along comes this climate change threat. Look at the result. Rules and regulations are looming everywhere--all for our own good of course. We must be saved from ourselves--not with the usual subtle governmental guidance, but now with proposed radical restructuring of our society and lifestyle.
I think humans (especially Americans) can far better adjust to climate change than to tyrannical impositions of an unfettered government.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is man's hubris that got us into this situation in the first place. Further meddling with natural processes can only make things worse, in ways that we can only imagine. This is reality not science fiction. We don't possess even a small fraction of the knowledge necessary to safely begin such an undertaking. Let's start by eliminating our negative, destabilizing contributions to the equation and then see if nature doesn't balance it the rest of the way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
9 December 2008
Media Advisory: NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Scientist at Press Briefing
NSIDC Research Scientist and Arctic sea ice expert Julienne Stroeve will join a panel of scientists on December 16 at 9:00 am Pacific Standard Time for a press briefing on Arctic change. Stroeve will discuss the emergence and implications of stronger warming in the Arctic compared to the rest of the globe, a process tied to the rapid decline of summer Arctic sea ice.

Please see below for call-in information for reporters not attending the Fall American Geophysics Union (AGU) Conference. Please contact Peter Weiss at or Maria-Jose Vinas at for more information on attending AGU with press credentials.

Press briefing details
The Arctic in Flux: New Insights from the International Polar Year

Continuing climate changes in the Arctic received renewed scientific attention during the International Polar Year (IPY), which began in February 2007. This briefing presents early results from a range of studies conducted during IPY based on climate models and new observations taken from sea, land, and space.

Findings include evidence that the predicted amplification of Arctic warming caused by decreasing sea ice has already begun (Stroeve); large increases in tundra greenness along North America's Arctic coasts (Walker); the discovery of new seeps of the greenhouse gas methane along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (Semiletov); and a lengthening snowmelt season and a second year of ice mass loss in Greenland (Tedesco).

To read more about conference sessions related to the press briefing, search for sessions C41B and U23F at the 2008 AGU Fall Meeting Web site.


So who do we believe?
The AGU or the NSIDC over same time period?
WUnder why we have skeptics.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
Just in to say that I have really enjoyed the discussion here over the past 2 days or so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Post 411, 413
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
Just what a guy needs who just shovelled a foot of snow of his driveway.

Severe Weather Bulletin
issued by Environment Canada
at 10:21 am PST Sunday 21 December 2008.
Watches/warnings in effect for coastal British Columbia...

Snowfall warning for:
Metro Vancouver
Greater Victoria
Fraser valley
Howe Sound
Sunshine Coast
southern Gulf islands
East Vancouver Island
west Vancouver Island
inland Vancouver Island
North Vancouver Island.

An additional 5 to 10 cm of snow for areas of the South Coast
are expected today and tonight. Higher amounts over localized
areas are possible.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
411. Skyepony (Mod)

more intresting tibits from AGU

AB: On July 12, 2008, the Okmok volcano (53.43°N, 168.13°W) in the Aleutian Islands erupted, injecting about 0.1 Tg SO2 into the lower stratosphere. On August 8, the nearby Kasatochi volcano (52.18°N, 175.51°W) erupted, injecting an additional 1.5 Tg SO2 into the lower stratosphere. This is the largest stratospheric injection of sulfate aerosol precursors since the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE general circulation model, we calculated the expected climate response to the resulting sulfate aerosol cloud. We conducted a five- member ensemble of two year runs, and compared our results to interannual variability. We conclude that the resulting cooling and changes in stratospheric circulation would be difficult to detect. We also calculate the amount of additional aerosols expected to remain in the stratosphere in the spring of 2009 and quantify their potential effect on ozone depletion..

So we did have a "good volcano year" not since '91 have we had this much sulfur go up. Pretty startling that not much effect is expected, especially with a move back into La Nina conditions. Perhaps this has helped with the dramatic ice recovery after a scary Sept.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37197
Quoting theshepherd:
Maybe we need a new "text abrev" for the GW debate?
TWCRYO=Typed With Compassion Respect Your Opinion...LOL


I'll have to keep that one tucked up in my repertoire..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Maybe we need a new "text abrev" for the GW debate?
TWCRYO=Typed With Compassion Respect Your Opinion...LOL
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
To me, it really does not matter whether it exists or not, whether it's anthropological or a natural occurrence. A matter for academics only, really. I'm not an academic in this particular field, so I don't feel compelled to join it.

Same merit as the question whether God exists or not. Does it matter? No. (That's not from the perspective of an atheist; although I'm yet undecided on my religious tendencies I disagree with 'If there's no evidence, then it can't be real' perspective.) What matters is how religion affects people, be it negatively or positively.

Maybe that 'people-centric' side of me comes from my actual field of social science and humanities but that's me.

Hope you understand where I'm coming from. :) No disrespect to those who do pay attention to the areas of the debate that I don't, either.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:

Just curious, what kind of evidence are you looking for? There is already more than enough evidence (and more coming in virtually daily; e.g. another study that shows no link to cosmic rays, a favorite of the deniers (e.g. Inhofe's report mentions it a couple dozen times, never mind that the scientists on his lists are not actually scientists or misrepresented); more record ice melt (this suggests that current sea level rise is underestimated), things happening faster than predicted) to see which is right.

Not so much that kind of evidence, STL.

For those who have pointed out that GW is a real phenomenon and is enhanced by human activity... offer certain guidelines of what we most do to stop or at the very least, curb the threat. Stopping CO2 emissions, recycle more, etc.

Which isn't really much specifically to do with GW at all... it's common sense to do so for the sake of everyone's health, financial situation and well being. So, if we all do those then:

a.) If Global Warming is very real, then we've done our bit to save civilisation. (Not 'save the planet' - The planet will be just fine heated up or no.)

b.) If it isn't, then we've helped ourselves anyway on other environmental concerns that are not at all contentious and for the sake of areas such as renewable energy - we won't run out.

The type of evidence I refer to is evidence refuting that. If to lessen the impacts of global warming require more than simple common sense measures (that we should be doing *anyway*) with adequate evidence to suggest that we must, then I may well join the 'debate'.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I read this blog to learn about weather and climate, not to eavesdrop on the personal chitchat of people I don't know. I started flagging things the do not conform to the standard of being "relevant to the discussion of tropical weather, or the topic of the blog entry itself," but there were so many I gave up. Is there a webmaster or someone who screens comments for relevance?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting moonrocker:
There, there (theshepherd)I wrote on this blog because it's full of experts and weather lovers. If I wanted insults, I'd have written Don Rickles. If I wanted kooks, I'd have written Air America.
It's all harm, no foul...LOL
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
I'm with ya Moonrocker.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
moonrocker - You might want to try Understanding and Responding to Climate Change from the National Academies of Science. I found it to be a good read and the source is credible.

FYI - the link is to a 3.3 MB pdf so those with slow connections might want to use caution.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Admittedly, I'm not an expert and it's not my intention to be contentious.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There, there (theshepherd)I wrote on this blog because it's full of experts and weather lovers. If I wanted insults, I'd have written Don Rickles. If I wanted kooks, I'd have written Air America.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
Can someone straighten me out on this conflict?

Yeah. Ignore it. That's what I do.

It's bliss as the well worn cliche explicitly states. Still yet to find any evidence which draws me into the debate on either side...

Take the common side approach of reducing emissions and increasing recycling, and you win either way. Job done. :)

So many debates aren't worth the pixels they're typed on...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Can someone straighten me out on this conflict?

And after Michael gets through insulting you, you'll be even further awash.
I just keep reading and try to learn.Maybe something will "click" one day.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10077
With all due respect to the experts working on this global warming/climate change thing, I just can’t wrap my brain around the theory or the duel premise. That being, that it’s happening and that it’s caused by human activity. There are forecasts of doom, global catastrophe, “…it may already be too late…we must act and act now!” This crisis seems to have become so imminent, that we can’t even apply real science (that is, the scientific method) to the problem. Computer models and theorists seem to be running this show. The models predict the climate change potential and the theorists then predict the destruction and devastation it will cause, along with improvable theoretical solutions for the situation--couched in the caveat, “of course we don’t know if these measures will work but we have to act and act now!”
Then suddenly, CO2 becomes classified as a pollutant? A gas that has been considered to have relative proportional insignificant in our atmosphere. A gas that rolls in and out of solution with the churning of the ocean. A gas that we exhale and is produced by virtually all types of human activity--from power generation to water purification, to manufacturing to transportation to--you name it…this gas must be controlled?
Today we are told that virtually everything unpleasant that happens on the planet is caused by climate change--from the presumed extinction of some obscure species to Katrina to the extremely cold winter we are experiencing currently--and the endless list goes on.
Many scientists and meteorologists do not buy the premise, but they are discredited and ignored by such esteemed climatologists as Al Gore, who--well, he might be a lawyer--I’m not sure. But he’s definitely spent most of his life as an environmental extremist. Many other politicians and governments (not to mention, the mainstream media) have decided to jump on this runaway train--people who are usually about as qualified as Al Gore to lead on these issues. And right there is the most terrifying aspect of the argument. This is a terrific opportunity for governments to jump in and seize massive amounts of power and control over everything we do! Yes everything. If you don’t think they’ll do it, then read a history book. Personally, I’d rather contend with the potential undesirable results of climate change.
It’s unacceptable to me to sit back and watch the planet be taken over by governments who justify their dictatorial acquisitions of power on a theory that the leaders have decided to “believe in.” As an American, I don’t want to see our liberties and freedoms, our capitalistic pursuits, our productivity, our way of life or our culture itself be corrupted by a belief system that is substantiated by circumstantial evidence, anecdotes and extrapolations. But George Bush believes in man-made climate change-- Obama believes, McCain believes, the UN believes. They have all said just that.
Frankly, I don’t want our society; our reality shaped and dictated by someone else’s “belief” in a theory. There is a boiling point for water--it’s a scientific fact. It’s repeatable, it’s verifiable--I don’t have to believe in it. This is science. Acceptance of man-made climate change and all of its disastrous results requires faith. This is religion.
Over the last fifty years, we’ve been warned (by scientists) of many coming catastrophes. We were going to run out of oil, trees water and air. We were going to suffer from overpopulation, a new mini-ice age, a variety of pandemics, the asteroid strike that “will someday happen,” a nuclear Armageddon and the list goes on. Most of these things were supposed to happen by the year 2000. But here we are--none of it has.
Unfortunately, this potential crisis has taken on a life of its own. It will have the ingredients of politics and the force of government. If the discipline and logic of science is not enforced and the fear mongering is not contained then the primary havoc wrought by climate change will not come so much from a rise in global temperatures as it will from our governments.
Can someone straighten me out on this conflict?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
yes Baha - a reality -- but...when you see the actions of the "little guy" aka Portlight......maybe, just maybe,,, in the meantime we must continue to do the right thing and pay it forward....I beleive in miracles

OK I'm out
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
any room in the Galley -- I cook 24/7 here at home.... might as well get something for it LOL

Howz about pulling into SRQ -- lovely bay, good amenities.............. well nothing like where you're going and far too civilized

OK I'm off -- I am happy to announce I am going to run till I drop from the BLISS of exhaustion.........(use to be 20 miles, but today a mere 15) The weather is perfect, the sunny is just marvelous...... perhaps when I pass the beach one of the orca pods will be out, or maybe some dolpins. I'm hoping the Osprey that lives by the drawbridge will greet me -- I call him KEEPEROFTHEGATE, opening music on the IPOD are the best kick ass music from Pirates of the Carib -- I'll be sending ALL my WU friends the peace, serenity and JOY that I find on these runs via the morphic field -- that I find truly amazing. (check out Rupert Sheldrake's book DOGS KNOW WHEN THEIR OWNERS ARE COMING HOME & OTHER UNEXPLAINED POWERS OF ANIMALS!!!
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
Surfmom - we have a three week cruise planned, starting with Vieques and working eastward to anagada. Hopfully hitting all the virgin islands in between. Should be fun. Boat sails on the 4th. Three young studs and one old fart to ride herd on their misbehaviors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting surfmom:
Yes Baha -- a well reason thought -- only problem is that as long as the BANKSTERS & the Fed Reserve are in control -- we are not

Money Talks - and that is for both sides of the ocean.
I think a lot of our conversation about weather and climate is useful and important, but while the money men are seeing only the $$ aspects of climate, we will continue to make minimal headway. Most people making the financial decisions aren't thinking about long-term investment. They are more interested in getting the largest most immediate profits from their dealings.

It's reality. [shrugs]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OOOP no one mentioned this yet... and I figured someone beat me to it....buttttt

HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE - @7:04 am - HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE..........................soon spring will be on it's way ---- YEAAAAAA

cause I'm wanting some Hot Summer Sun
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
Yes Baha -- a well reason thought -- only problem is that as long as the BANKSTERS & the Fed Reserve are in control -- we are not

Money Talks - and that is for both sides of the ocean.
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
msphar - LOL - you can keep the snow activities... on the on hand taking the Sailboat out truly catches my interest..... I NEED some hot carib sun and waters -- too far for me to swim, kayak, or paddle to Trin, or that Carib hideaway Orca went to.
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
BoM's latest on ex-TC Billy:

Looks like it still has a fair chance of reinvigorating. I think it's due to keep heading west if it does, however, which hopefully means damage could be kept to a minimum.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting surfmom:
A snow shovel is a tool of torture... unlike a sand shovel which is a tool of fun
Not to mention the difference in size and usually colour.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
post # 362 gets my vote as the most brilliant, well reasoned post of the year....
Thanks. I appreciate your support.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
354 Pottery -- give up the lawn, I let my chickens take over the back -- maybe you could get some pygmy goats to mow the lawn
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
Sounds a wee bit better -- but I'm too thin skinned for the cold........

Nice visual, Orca with a tan - shoveling snow LOL
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
Well, dear Orca, if it's any comfort... I'll be shoveling horse poop in a few hours -- honestly though much prefer my shoveling activity to yours.... I'll be shovelling in shorts & a t-shirt
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536

Viewing: 433 - 383

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Top of Page


Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
74 °F
Scattered Clouds